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.
2016/02/24 14:50:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
WrentheFaceless wrote: Do the protections of the US Constitution even apply to non citizens that arent even in country?
No, of course not. How would a foreign national outside the US invoke US legal protections? Not all constitutional protections even apply to non-citizens within the country. Campaign spending, voting, and firearm ownership, for example, are restricted. Additionally, the courts have permitted foreign nationals to be expelled because of race, precluded foreign ownership of land, and allowed deportations for associations that were completely legal at the time. Many do apply to foreign nationals in the country, however such as due process, equal protection, etc.
None of that has anything to do with limits on entry for foreign nationals, however. limits on what the government can do while someone is within the jurisdiction are not the same as limits on who they allow in the first place. This is why law can be tricky for the untrained. There are a lot of assumptions made by people based on how they think things work or should work, not based on how the law or government actually functions. And constitutional law often gets very complex, even for those trained in the legal field.
-James
2016/02/24 15:20:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Whembly, pretty confident we have all made it clear that we do not care whose "rule" it is, it is all a bunch of crap and they just need to do their jobs.
2016/02/24 15:55:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: Whembly, pretty confident we have all made it clear that we do not care whose "rule" it is, it is all a bunch of crap and they just need to do their jobs.
That's the crux of the argument.
You don't think they're doing their job.
I do.
Where were you when Reid went nuclear on Senate filibuster?
Not that it'd matter... Clinton is gunna be the next President. So... I don't see a whole lot of differences between what a Obama nominee vs a Clinton nominee would look like.
Except... whomever Clinton nominates, you can safely bet that person donated to The Clinton Foundation.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/24 16:04:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/02/24 16:44:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/24 17:52:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
We don't know if Obama will do as Biden suggested. We have no clue, this has never happened while Obama was in office. Maybe we should find out and go from there instead of accusing him of something he hasn't even done.
Or maybe you could inform yourself by doing research in to things next time instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on a line from a speech that the Republican party fed you so that you would regurgitate it as truth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/24 17:53:30
2016/02/24 18:17:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
We don't know if Obama will do as Biden suggested. We have no clue, this has never happened while Obama was in office. Maybe we should find out and go from there instead of accusing him of something he hasn't even done.
Or maybe you could inform yourself by doing research in to things next time instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on a line from a speech that the Republican party fed you so that you would regurgitate it as truth.
Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/24 19:00:09
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/24 18:48:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Andrew Jackson said his biggest regret was not hanging John C Calhoun!
As I type this, I reach over to the bookcase and flick through my general guide to American history and what do I see: FDR at odds with the Senate over his appointment of SCOTUS judges. Random example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/24 19:23:49
"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
2016/02/24 19:22:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
And do you think Cruz would be any better, after he has purposefully burned just about every bridge he has with his fellow senators from his own party?
"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
2016/02/24 19:28:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
And do you think Cruz would be any better, after he has purposefully burned just about every bridge he has with his fellow senators from his own party?
President Cruz?
*snort*
I honestly think it depends on who's the majority in the Senate.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/24 19:32:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Via CNN:
The chairman of the Judiciary panel, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, spoke with Obama about the selection process last week, but has so far declined invitations to meet with Obama in person, a White House official said late Tuesday.
Why won't Obama reach out to the Senate!!!
2016/02/24 20:04:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Via CNN:
The chairman of the Judiciary panel, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, spoke with Obama about the selection process last week, but has so far declined invitations to meet with Obama in person, a White House official said late Tuesday.
Why won't Obama reach out to the Senate!!!
He is such a lame duck!
2016/02/24 20:08:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Let's look at modern history.
- Dubbya compromised with the Democrats in the last two years of his administration (much to the chagrin of conservatives).
- Clinton compromised with Republicans when they controlled Congress (welfare reform & balanced budget).
- Reagan was famous for compromising with Democrats to get things passed that were important to him. (lower marginal rates & more military spending)
Now there were items of contention on both sides of the isle but I don't see what is happening now as simply par for the course. Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Full and complete sentences, please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/24 20:19:46
2016/02/24 20:39:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Let's look at modern history.
- Dubbya compromised with the Democrats in the last two years of his administration (much to the chagrin of conservatives).
- Clinton compromised with Republicans when they controlled Congress (welfare reform & balanced budget).
- Reagan was famous for compromising with Democrats to get things passed that were important to him. (lower marginal rates & more military spending)
Now there were items of contention on both sides of the isle but I don't see what is happening now as simply par for the course. Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Full and complete sentences, please.
But like I said earlier, how's that any different from Andrew Jackson threatening to hang his vice-president or FDR at loggerheads with the Senate over his SCOTUS nominations? The Republicans seem to think that different laws apply to Obama, in a way they never applied to previous presidents.
I remember Obama's first presidential campaign: vote for me and you'll get Obamacare, and Obama wins big. The Republican reaction was something to behold - they were literally foaming at the mouth. Heaven forbid a President does what he says he's going to do, if elected.
An old story, for sure, but I hope my point is valid.
Just because some Presidents got on fine with the Senate, doesn't mean every President has too get along with the senate. In an ideal world, American politics would be a wonderful, loving place of politicians working for the greater good of the USA.
But it doesn't happen, because humans are ultimately selfish, and political parties are no different.
George Washington despised and hated political parties and factions, describing them as a gangrene on the Republic. Does that make him a bad president?
"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
2016/02/24 20:44:01
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Given that the powers of the executive have grown over the years due to the extraordinary events of the Civil War and the 1930s, and given that some scholars believe the executive to be an 'imperial presidency,' it's a wonder that any President co-operates with the senate or congress, when he can veto anything he doesn't like or executive order his way to a position he does like.
Yes, it's an slight over-simplification, but an important point none the less.
"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
2016/02/24 21:01:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that the powers of the executive have grown over the years due to the extraordinary events of the Civil War and the 1930s, and given that some scholars believe the executive to be an 'imperial presidency,' it's a wonder that any President co-operates with the senate or congress, when he can veto anything he doesn't like or executive order his way to a position he does like.
Yes, it's an slight over-simplification, but an important point none the less.
*eh*
Most of the blame lies with Congress abdicating their duties by purposely writing many laws ambiguous enough to give the Executive Branch flexibility to "interpret" that law.
It even found it's way to the Supreme Court called the Chevron Doctrine.
This is a bipartisan problem and, imo, lies solely with Congress. Congress can wrest control by passing explicit laws and also withhold fundings. The former means Congress has to do a "better job". The latter has it's own distinct political problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/24 21:08:28
