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.

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

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

You never found my position because it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

This started with your statement;
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2250/633412.page#7975432

 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

To which the counter was;
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2250/633412.page#7976723

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That may be a bad example as the oath of office for the AG reads;
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

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

The point being made that disliking a provision of the Constitution, while at the same time bearing true faith and allegiance to it, may show that someone is not qualified to hold the position.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

See, but I can't agree with that interpretation... he said "Americans aren't working hard enough" And yeah... he later backtracked and basically spelled out what you said, but honestly, in today's political environment, you need to be absolutely clear the first time you say something.

He would have been much better served if he had said, "we need more americans working full-time jobs, not part-time"

Disliking a provision of the constitution has nothing to do with enforcing and following the provisions.

We don't courtmartial every single soldier that gets pissy about someone disrespecting the flag, or remove every legislator that runs on an unconstitutional platform.

None of which goes to the core of my actual argument: that it has nothing to do with actually being "qualified". Any attorney is "qualified", even attorneys that do a bunch of stuff none of us like. If you want keep on yapping about Y and Z then go ahead I guess, if you want to actually address X then feel free as well. Meanwhile my point stands: "just nominate someone qualified" is a stupid argument.

 d-usa wrote:
Disliking a provision of the constitution has nothing to do with enforcing and following the provisions.

So an AG who dislikes the Second Amendment and is on record saying that not being able to erode that particular right was "my single failure" is able to bear true faith and allegiance to that portion of the Constitution?

Or how about being held in contempt. Should that make someone ineligible?

 d-usa wrote:
If you want keep on yapping about Y and Z then go ahead I guess, if you want to actually address X then feel free as well. Meanwhile my point stands: "just nominate someone qualified" is a stupid argument.

If you want to keep yapping on about how I'm not discussing X when the whole time we were discussing Y and Z then go ahead I guess

He is still qualified, which is the actual X my entire argument is about. Gun control, despite your well know opinion on the matter, is not unconstitutional. Idividual actions can be, but the subject as a whole is not.

So yes, one can lament not being able to push for unpopular actions that may well be constitutional despite a vocal opposition to the idea while at the same time upholding their oath of office to defend it.

And unless the constitution says "people who have been held in contempt can't be AG anymore" then people who have been held in contempt can still be qualified to be AG.

Again, thanks for demonstrating the stupidity of the "just nominate someone qualified" argument.

 d-usa wrote:
He is still qualified, which is the actual X my entire argument is about. Gun control, despite your well know opinion on the matter, is not unconstitutional. Idividual actions can be, but the subject as a whole is not.

So yes, one can lament not being able to push for unpopular actions that may well be constitutional despite a vocal opposition to the idea while at the same time upholding their oath of office to defend it.

And you know that his attempts at gun control would have been Constitutional because......

I'll go back to my earlier point and expand on it. Should an AG candidate who is on record saying that (s)he would like to erode any of the following;
- free speech
- freedom of assembly
- trial by jury
- equal protection
Be seen as qualified for the post?

 d-usa wrote:
And unless the constitution says "people who have been held in contempt can't be AG anymore" then people who have been held in contempt can still be qualified to be AG.

Because nothing says Head of the DoJ like being held in contempt.

I know, it's almost like "just nominate someone qualified" is a horrible argument to begin with since a guy who appears to hold questionable ethics in some areas, manages to skirt just on this side of constitutional actions, and who was held in contempt by congress still meets all the required qualifications for the office of AG.

"Just nominate someone qualified" is a useless sound bite for the electorate.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

Well, here is a quote from ole Jeb

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”

followed by some of the related facts

Let's see the real facts about just how hard Americans work below:

1. In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.
2. According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”
3. Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think it would help if we screened politicians for mental stability before they get office.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

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

Actually his or her opinion on general free speech is irrelevant to the oath. It is the person's opinion on the validity of the Constitution which matters, at least when it comes to eligibility.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 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.

You got it.

Counter point though: ALL Democrats voted for her... only something like 8 or 9 Republicans did. So.... yerself!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

In a way... I agree. Although, some positions are more politically important than others that may garner more attention from the Senate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 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.

Uh... whut?

We're done with this AG/secretary/etc discussion. It's getting rude, and we're just going in a downward spiral with it. "You're too stupid to X" "Well if only you'd answer Z then we can talk" "But I'm not talking about Z" "But Z", stop it now.

Deleted by mod request.

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

Um... He wasn’t asking full-time workers to spend more time at work. He was calling for more full-time jobs that many are stuck in part-time jobs (or out of work) because of Obama's/Democrat's economic policies. (PPACA perverse incentives for one).

If you want more of the same, vote for Hillary!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
We're done with this AG/secretary/etc discussion. It's getting rude, and we're just going in a downward spiral with it. "You're too stupid to X" "Well if only you'd answer Z then we can talk" "But I'm not talking about Z" "But Z", stop it now.

Oops... sorry!

 whembly wrote:

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

Um... He wasn’t asking full-time workers to spend more time at work. He was calling for more full-time jobs that many are stuck in part-time jobs (or out of work) because of Obama's/Democrat's economic policies. (PPACA perverse incentives for one).

If you want more of the same, vote for Hillary!

You truly have no clue about me.

Actually his own words say he does want folks who work full time to do more hours

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.

And I am a Sanders supporter, Hillary is part of the Democrats that are republican lite. What we call Corporate Democrats as Obama has actually shown himself to be. Not what the Tea-party tried to make him out to be. I voted Nader as I felt I was talking to a salesman when Obama spoke
I hear nothing really new or helpful from the Republican side, and watch as Trump burns himself each day. Now had we a more enlightened bunch on the Republican ticket that could possibly win me over but it is all the same, let infrastructure crumble, cut off social safety nets and education so we can make even more insanely enormous pay outs to the Military Industrial Complex, hand out of billions to BIG OIL, and other Fat Cats, allow pollution to go out of control, and let businesses (Corporations, not little guys), police themselves when that is the same as handing the burglar the keys to your house and car,

Too many are voting Hillary because instead of the issues we face, they want to put a democratic female in office to make history when she will help out the particular Fat Cats who paid that super-pac of hers.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I used to be Republican in voting measures, but Reagan and Bush were my first dissolution, then the more unstable sounding party members in office opened their mouths and I realized I can't support "Crazy as a bag o cats" politicians. What we get from that party today is stuff I as a human being cannot support in good conscience.

That was why I went first to the dems, and then Progressives.

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

So, repeat the same fundamentally weird thing that every Republican has been repeating as the central part of their platform since Reagan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

The VP is usually some guy who can 'balance the ticket'. So you want someone who has a strength to offset some weakness of your own, either in a certain region of the US, or on some political or personal level. So if you're weak in the midwest you pick a midwest VP, if you're perceived as weak on religion you pick a strongly Christian VP etc.

Then on top of that you typically pick someone who's got strong connections and backroom skills, because you want the VP to be useful when you're in office.

But the thing is if some candidate has all that and mainstream political appeal, well then they're probably beating you in their own run for the Whitehouse. Or if its close and you're a bit stronger, then they aren't going to accept your VP offer as they know it's a powerless position that typically sinks future presidential chances.

So naturally VP candidates tend to come from the pool of people who real mainstream popularity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Can you imagine the political fallout if an assassination attempt killed Obama and put Romney in the Whitehouse? Or killed Bush and put Gore in the Whitehouse?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Biden is a really solid VP, I think, especially for Obama. I think Biden probably should have been a little more prominent, to offset Obama's issue with blue collar voters.

In the same sense Cheney was a really solid VP for Bush. Bush was all charm and pleasantry, but he lacked gravitas. Cheney was the perfect pick to adjust for that.

In both cases, Biden and Cheney, they were never going to be more than VPs.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

So the "good and benevolent" force is... still the government then.

Also let's be real, the Rs don't actually care about a smaller government, seeing as the last few major government expansions have happened under the Rs. George W. Bush presided over the largest government expansion since FDR.

Seems Sanctuary Cities is going to be a hot topic for the contenders

Hillary has doubled down on supporting them.

I heard OMalley (is that the name) Sunday. I liked him. He thus has no chance.

Republicans now have a starting line up of a NFL team

Walker has announced he is running.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Republicans now have a starting line up of a NFL team

Walker has announced he is running.....

A drop out runs for President. He has admitted such. I have no confidence in his winning, but he also pretty much trashed his state, and who knows what will happen?

I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah. Granted most of mine is filled with conservative service members/veterans. Still I can see the narrative of Jeb vs Trump vs Hilary for the election race ready taking form.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.

He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.

He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house

People seem to be really impressed with his ability to say reactionary rhetoric to confirm their bias. That an the mythic belief that a corporate businessman can save the economy.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Republicans now have a starting line up of a NFL team

Walker has announced he is running.....

A drop out runs for President. He has admitted such. I have no confidence in his winning, but he also pretty much trashed his state, and who knows what will happen?

Indeed, plus Hillary has actual combat experience, having dodged sniper fire in the Balkans.

She had one heck of a brain fart.

 Jihadin wrote:
Seems Sanctuary Cities is going to be a hot topic for the contenders

Indeed... and democrats better hope Democrats don't fight for it.

Other wise, you'd start seeing "no married gheys sanctuary cities".

But, whem... it's the law now.

True... and so is immigration laws.

Why are sanctuary cities getting a pass?

 Jihadin wrote:


She had one heck of a brain fart.

It's ok, at least one esteemed media member can corroborate her story:

 whembly wrote:

Other wise, you'd start seeing "no married gheys sanctuary cities".

Sanctuary ordinances are not prohibitive, they are inclusive.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Other wise, you'd start seeing "no married gheys sanctuary cities".

Sanctuary ordinances are not prohibitive, they are inclusive.

That doesn't make any sense.

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Other wise, you'd start seeing "no married gheys sanctuary cities".

Sanctuary ordinances are not prohibitive, they are inclusive.

That doesn't make any sense.

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.

The system is broken. I do not believe the current laws of the cities concerning Illegals does not extend to the type of individual who killed the female on the pier.
I blame the Police Chief for letting this guy go. I blame the current situation on how this came to be on the politicians
This was a needless death
I support Katie Law now