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.
2015/09/11 06:15:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.
There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom-de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.
Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there should probably a court review of any decision to kill someone, whether they're American or not.
“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.
2015/09/11 10:33:26
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.
There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom-de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.
Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there should probably a court review of any decision to kill someone, whether they're American or not.
That is a stupid statement. Many (though not all) of these drone strikes are in war zones. 'Any decision to kill someone' would seem to cover the decision of an A-10 pilot or an infantryman as well. To impose your standard would be asinine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/11 10:34:51
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/11 18:14:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Of course, totally pointless given what happened in the Senate.
Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...
"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
2015/09/11 22:28:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So apparently a bill has been floated that would remove the presidents ability to get rid of sanctions. This bill would expire at the end of obama's term. It's so hilariously partisan, and it's not even trying to hide.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/11 23:06:33
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.
2015/09/11 22:52:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...
I've been saying that for years now. The Republican Party was put in office to do a job... and that job wasn't to just stamp their feet, put their fingers in their ears and shout "No!" at the President. Yet, they seem to not be very interested in offering alternative plans or ideas to much of anything.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/09/11 22:59:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: So apparently a bill has been floated that would remove the presidents ability to get rid of sanctions. This bill would expire at the end of obama's term. It's so hilariously partisan, and it's not even trying to hide.
*meh*
The current Iran Act, which allows for the President's discretion for these sanctions, is still a legal statute.
And yes, it's partisan... which obviously won't go anywhere.
At least Perry was one of the first to have the balls to call out Trump on his BS.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/09/12 02:22:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You know, last time at the dance I was totally convinced he had no clue which way the door was. This time he seemed sort of reasonable. Was I really tricked by his glasses that much? Did the drugs really affect him that much last time? Why did the GOP love him for a brief period of time last time when he was clearly bonkers, and this time, when he was making coherent statements, they totally ignored him? I'm so confused. Where is the vicatin?
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/12 03:25:27
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Never go on the attack on Trump.....bad things happen
Graham
Perry
Jeb
are a few that can attest to that
I figure Walker went to zero for the Northern Wall idea even though we do have issues with Canada on border crossing. Just don't jump on a band wagon of a opposite direction
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
2015/09/12 04:12:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gordon Shumway wrote: You know, last time at the dance I was totally convinced he had no clue which way the door was. This time he seemed sort of reasonable. Was I really tricked by his glasses that much? Did the drugs really affect him that much last time? Why did the GOP love him for a brief period of time last time when he was clearly bonkers, and this time, when he was making coherent statements, they totally ignored him? I'm so confused. Where is the vicatin?
He couldn't overcome the 2012 debate...
One of the things I liked about him is his humility and doesn't toot personal stuff...
He took in Marcus Luttrel and it took Marcus' book to get the word out what the Perry's have done for him...
In the 2012 debate, when Santorum talked about the challenges of healthcare regarding Bella... he noticed that Perry wrote something down (and it was the only thing). At the end of the debate, while Santorum was shaking Perry's hand, he glanced at Perry's written note... it simply said: "Pray for Bella". Santorum tells this story....
I believe having that sort of humility in the position of power, such as the President, is a good indicator on how he'd perform as President.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/12 05:35:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That's a really good story. I think he was a good guy and deserved more than he got. And now the canidate for the GOP wishes he could commit incest. To be fair, she is really pretty. I guess that is fair?
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/12 06:15:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gordon Shumway wrote: That's a really good story. I think he was a good guy and deserved more than he got. And now the canidate for the GOP wishes he could commit incest. To be fair, she is really pretty. I guess that is fair?
I think the more Carson and Fiorina gets more mainstream exposure... the more Trump will fall.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/12 06:28:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I doubt it. They are essentially fighting over the same voters (low voter I.D., and I.T.,voted once or twice, anti establishment, Sean Hannity/Karl Levin wannabes.) There is no way the party will allow any of them to be the candidate. They will change the rules if needs be to allow the Karl Roves and the National Reviews to get their candidate.i wish that wasn't the case (easy win for the Dems) but it is. Done deal. I've said it before: the only candidate the Dems even need to worry about is Kasich. Every other one is a mulligan.
Edit: but did anybody see Biden's interview last night? The man seems genuine. If only he could get his ducks in a row by the nominating deadlines (not likely), vow to run for just one term (to get rid of the aged comments) and pick Warren as VP right off the bat, I doubt anybody could come close to him. It won't happen, but it would sure be interesting. And it would pretty much assure the White House for the next twelve,years.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/12 06:50:38
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/12 08:03:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think the more Carson and Fiorina gets more mainstream exposure... the more Trump will fall.
Fiorina is sitting at ~3 points, ~5 if you're generous. This means that Ted Cruz is ahead of her, and she's running even with Mike "Team Kim!" Huckabee.
Not an auspicious position.
whembly wrote: ... it simply said: "Pray for Bella". Santorum tells this story....
Obviously. Santorum's shtick is basically "I'm Christian!"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/12 08:15:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/12 08:56:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...
I've been saying that for years now. The Republican Party was put in office to do a job... and that job wasn't to just stamp their feet, put their fingers in their ears and shout "No!" at the President. Yet, they seem to not be very interested in offering alternative plans or ideas to much of anything.
As I've mentioned a few times, I sat through that Senate oversight committee on the Iran deal, God knows why
and the sheer lack of a Republican alternative to the deal was something to behold.
When Kerry rightly pointed out that the deal was almost identical to what GW Bush offered, the Republican response was OBAMA BAD!.
When Kerry asked the Republicans what they would have done differently, they paused for a while and then it was OBAMA BAD.
It's just as well that 99% of the American public doesn't watch these committees because there would be another American Revolution the next day.
I would not trust these Senators/Congressmen to run a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Was going to start a new thread on this, but on reflection, I'll post it here.
If you don't want to read the full article, here are the key facts:
It was an online poll, sample size was 1000, 43% of Republicans would support it in certain circumstances, only 20% of Democrats would support it, and most participants (43%) said that it would take violations of the constitution to trigger support for such a move.
Seems the revolutionary spirit is alive and well in America.
Or, you could say that Republicans don't like being out of office. In my lifetime, this talk always springs up when the democrats are in 1600.
Anyway, it's food for thought.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/12 17:29:24
"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
2015/09/14 01:53:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: That is a stupid statement. Many (though not all) of these drone strikes are in war zones. 'Any decision to kill someone' would seem to cover the decision of an A-10 pilot or an infantryman as well. To impose your standard would be asinine.
If there was no identifiable difference between an engagement with armed opponents, and a mission designed ahead of time to take out a specific target, then you'd have a point. But there is a clear difference and so your point is nonsense.
Moving on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: And Rick Perry is the first to drop out of the race.
NPR put up a pretty good article about why he ran two terrible campaigns. The short version is that being a Republican in Texas means you don't have to try very hard, so you get kind of lazy and don't develop the skills you need in a competitive race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: He had a good tenure in Texas and arguably, he'd be a decent President.
I think it's very arguable that he would have made a decent Republican president, his policies are basically the same old reheated Republican mush.
But there's no denying he had a record as governor that should have made him a strong contender among Republicans. He's delivered exactly what people say they want - small government and strong economic growth. But he went nowhere, and I don't think it's entirely because of a poor campaign performance. Maybe people were never able to get past the third agency thing, or maybe the base has shifted to the point where it doesn't even care about boring stuff like delivering small government and growth anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Or, you could say that Republicans don't like being out of office. In my lifetime, this talk always springs up when the democrats are in 1600.
Anyway, it's food for thought.
To be fair, through the Bush years there was no plenty of crazy rhetoric coming from the left. I'm not sure if I heard much in the way of armed rebellion, but I remember a lot of people who were quite earnest believed Bush was going to find a way to give himself more terms as some kind of dictator.
The difference, I think, is that Republican leadership is way more likely to play up to their fringe than Democrats.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/14 02:12:41
“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.
2015/09/14 02:51:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be fair, through the Bush years there was no plenty of crazy rhetoric coming from the left. I'm not sure if I heard much in the way of armed rebellion, but I remember a lot of people who were quite earnest believed Bush was going to find a way to give himself more terms as some kind of dictator.
The difference, I think, is that Republican leadership is way more likely to play up to their fringe than Democrats.
Wasn't there some noise from time to time where random towns or counties talked about arresting Bush for war-crimes if he ever showed up in town?
Clinton asserts that she had the right under government rules to decide which emails were private and to delete them. This week’s filing puts the Justice Department’s approval on Clinton’s claim.
“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil division wrote.
Judicial Watch had requested a court order from the judge to ensure that Clinton’s emails were being preserved. But the Justice Department said there was no need for such an order given that Clinton had the right to delete personal emails and that those messages are not subject to the public records law.
The government said Judicial Watch had presented no evidence to suggest Clinton had mistakenly or intentionally deleted government records instead of personal emails, and said “government agencies are not required to take steps to recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted.”
2015/09/15 18:21:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Meanwhile, Bernie also speaks in places left alone by other Democrats
Yep, and listen carefully, during that speech, some of the audience cheers and claps at what he says.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/15 18:23:17
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
2015/09/15 22:43:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.
He'd (well... Congress) have to slap a big tax hikes on the uber rich... but, also massively raise it on EVERYONE.
We have a lesson to be learned in Venezuela. I suggest we'd start paying attention.
True, but there are also lessons to be learned from our own country, and we're not bothering to pay attention to those, either.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/09/16 00:24:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.
I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??
Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.
2015/09/16 03:35:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
While Sanders is cleaning up the Evangelical vote at Liberty "University", I'm excited to see the clown show tomorrow night. I actually think this may be the night that someone busts ahead of Trump. My reasoning for this is a certain segment of otherwise disengaged GOP voters may tune in and watch the debate based on last debates buzz, and see what a lightweight Trump is on policy. Of course, he will have to have one of the big kids at the adult table expose him.
Who will it be? Will anyone grow a pair, or is this going to be another "terrific" Trump performance?
Trump won't go after Bush, he knows better, so I still think this is Bush's nomination to lose ultimately. If he can muster even a bit of the GW swagger, Trump is done IME. I don't see a real challenge other than Bush to Trump's surprisingly successful campaign so far.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/16 03:37:59
2015/09/16 03:48:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: If he can muster even a bit of the GW swagger.
IMHO... that just simply isn't "Jeb" at all. He seems much more soft spoken, but I haven't heard hims speak enough to opine whether he's got a soft voice with a major backbone (family members often tell me this was Bush Sr kind of in a nutshell)
It'll be interesting to see it play out. I know it's still very early, but both sides of the aisle are beginning to shape up some extremely interesting races, and each for different reasons.
2015/09/16 03:59:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
IMHO... that just simply isn't "Jeb" at all. He seems much more soft spoken, but I haven't heard hims speak enough to opine whether he's got a soft voice with a major backbone (family members often tell me this was Bush Sr kind of in a nutshell).
I'm inclined to agree. However if you are old enough to remember the 2000 elections, GW appeared like a softy as well (remember "Compassionate Conservatism"?...how would that fly today?). It was only after 9/11/01 that Bush was thrust into growing a pair of gonads. He overgrew them, in fact, which has led to the disaster in the MIddle East and Europe today.
Jeb could hypothetically beat the Democrats with a "kinder, gentler set of GW balls", but he certainly has to at least be able to fake it to make it, and I think he can catch a few pointers from his brother in that arena.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 04:00:42
2015/09/16 04:07:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.
I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??
Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.
Fun fact: you could completely stop spending $$$ on the military, and confiscate all earnings after the first million dollars... and it still won't be enough to pay for Bern's pie-in-the-sky socialist dream.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/16 04:11:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
.
