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.
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
You misunderstand: I responded to ridiculous hyperbole with ridiculous hyperbole. I realize not every pro choice woman gets an abortion, just as I sincerely hope the poster I was responding to realizes that Republicans aren't some sort of immoral slaughter cult, which is how it came off.
They can't hold or refuse to hold hearings and you know it. It doesn't make the rhetoric any less idiotic.
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US
I actually think this is a bad thing. The Republicans and Democrats in past Congresses have made effective use of the filibuster to protect minority interests and bring people to the negotiation table. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether would make it pointless for the minority party to even show up and I think that's bad government.
I agree. The problem is that accelerating use of the filibuster over the past few decades has given rise to a situation in which a "tyranny of the minority" can arise.
What's to be done? Ultimately we have to hope that our elected representatives have the sense to maintain good governance procedures above individual and party issues.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 20:18:40
whembly wrote: Strange... I remember not having the 9th seat filled as some sort of Constitutional Crisis™.
Gee... what changed that paradigm?
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
I guess I'm just enamored with the idea if the Senate having the 60 vote requirements is it forces more deliberation.
IOW: "I don't think the constitution is good enough as-is, I want to change the rules".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 20:39:28
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 21:04:56
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The republican party can end the standoff at any time by confirming Obama's nomination as they should have done, and then refusing to use obstructionist tactics in the future. But as long as the republican party has an openly-stated policy of "only republican presidents are permitted to nominate justices" I don't see any reason to reward them for it and encourage them to keep doing it in the future.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's ultimately irrelevant what the Democrats do now. Of course it's stupid, and if the Republicans had any integrity they wouldn't have pulled this gak to begin with cause here we are, at the obvious end point of obstruction for obstruction's sake. A demand that the Democrats be the "big boys" and play "fair" while the Republicans don't give a gak is childish and playing a game of gotcha with no consideration for who started this mess downhill is asinine.
At what point do we realize we're just pawns in a game we're not even playing?
A common man can't even muster enough support to be elected to a signifigant office. There may as well be a sign on the way in to DC that says 'You must be this rich to participate'.
I can't honestly remember the last time something was decided for the people and not the ruling class. The Dakota and Keystone being pushed through is a great example of this. Both these projects only reward those at the top while they toss out a handful of scraps thinking their doing us a favor, while folks whom the pipeline runs past wait for the inevitable leak.
Ultimately, we sit here and go back and forth on what would be good or bad for the country when the reality that is our world is decided on what will line someones pocket.
I can write my congress man everyday for the rest of my life and I doubt he'd ever read a singal letter. But, here I am, everyday, reading these arguements. I'm begining to think politics is like the weather. You can't change it but it sure is nice to complain.
whembly wrote: Strange... I remember not having the 9th seat filled as some sort of Constitutional Crisis™.
Gee... what changed that paradigm?
Nothing changed, it's simply a refusal to reward the republicans for breaking the system. If Trump is not permitted to nominate anyone there's a chance that, in the future, the republican party will not attempt to break the system because there is no reward for doing so. If Trump gets to successfully put his guy on the court then the obstructionism has been rewarded, and you can guarantee that it's going to happen again in the future.
Harry Reid broke the system. Putting the blame squarely on GOP's lap is foolish.
He set the precedent in nuking the filibuster, for a short-term gain.
There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
I guess I'm just enamored with the idea if the Senate having the 60 vote requirements is it forces more deliberation.
IOW: "I don't think the constitution is good enough as-is, I want to change the rules".
Meaning... what?
The Constitution gave the senate HUGE leeway as to how it should operate their chambers... this club makes their own rules.
Reid created a precedent... a precedent that'll likely turn this Senate a rubber-stamp for Trumpesto's Administration when the simple-majority be able to pass anything it wants.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It means that no candidate will be run through the system unless the President controls the Senate, and if they do then that candidate will be run through automatically. Awesome sauce.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The republican party can end the standoff at any time by confirming Obama's nomination as they should have done, and then refusing to use obstructionist tactics in the future. But as long as the republican party has an openly-stated policy of "only republican presidents are permitted to nominate justices" I don't see any reason to reward them for it and encourage them to keep doing it in the future.
Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
As noted, nuke'em. This restores the balance that a President should have the default approval of their candidates.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
Congresses of different parties don't obstruct the previous administration's picks with a blanket "you are not permitted to nominate anyone". The question is not what is standard practice, it's what the republican party needs to do to distance itself from breaking the system with blatant obstructionism. Confirming the previous administration's candidate is a rejection of the gains from obstructionism, removing the incentive to use similar tactics in the future.
As noted, nuke'em. This restores the balance that a President should have the default approval of their candidates.
Conveniently only after the republican party has benefited from obstructionism.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Frazzled wrote: Yea...no. Presidents of different parties don't renominate the previous administration's candidate.
Congresses of different parties don't obstruct the previous administration's picks with a blanket "you are not permitted to nominate anyone". .
They do now. I think we are in agreement that this inappropriate. I also think this helps restore balance as a simple majority can again affect the nomination approval.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.
Thanks for clarifying, because prior.... it looked pretty bad. Now, it is just garden variety Nationalism.
Plus, as Americans we should be aspiring to be better than Europeans. That should appeal to you Fraz!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
"When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation."
Again, this is not Obama deciding to target a teenager.
Yes, but that is not the same as targetting teenagers for assassination with drone strikes.
You seem to be making the claim that Obama deliberately sought out teenagers to pick off with specifically targetted missiles.
What he did was to authorise strikes that had a chance of involving "collateral damage" by injuring the people around the designated target, who was a genuine terrorist. Given that these people are living in close proximity to civilians, this is a risk that will always be present. The whole film of Eye In The Sky was based on this moral dilemma.
We see the same thing in cases of commando raids, from the Black Hawk Down event through the successful attack on Bin Laden in Pakistan, to the latest Trump authorised raid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: At what point do we realize we're just pawns in a game we're not even playing?
A common man can't even muster enough support to be elected to a signifigant office. There may as well be a sign on the way in to DC that says 'You must be this rich to participate'.
I can't honestly remember the last time something was decided for the people and not the ruling class. ... ....
Frazzled wrote: Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?
Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?
Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?
Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.
Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.
Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.
Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.
So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?
Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.
Thanks for clarifying, because prior.... it looked pretty bad. Now, it is just garden variety Nationalism.
Plus, as Americans we should be aspiring to be better than Europeans. That should appeal to you Fraz!
The "refugees" sitting near the Chunnel should by international law have presented themselves for asylum at the first friendly country they entered, usually somewhere like Turkey or Italy if they came from the Middle East or North Africa. They didn't because actually they want to get into the UK. If they were vetted through the usual process, they might not be assigned to get asylum in the UK. They haven't been vetted because they prefer to try and get into the UK illegally rather than take the chance of going through the vetting process..
The Trump initiative simply bans anyone carrying a passport from various Muslim nations in which he doesn't have any business interests, from travelling to the USA even if they already have a Green Card.
This is a pretty clear difference between the two situations.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/30 22:25:57
Do not misperceive my views. in general I am against the EO especially in regards to families.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Not sure how Trump's 7 country travel ban is related to an alt-right terrorist committing an act of domestic terror?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 00:03:02
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
That AG should be fired.
Congress need to move forward with Sessions appointment stat.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
That AG should be fired.
Congress need to move forward with Sessions appointment stat.
The reason apparently that the acting AG hasn't been fired?
Nobody else can sign all those foreign surveillance warrants until a replacement is confirmed.
1984 ran us over with a truck.
While I support the position the acting AG is coming from, I find myself uncomfortable with the act itself, someone in that position doing whatever they want just because they disagree with the new administration for the short time they're in there sets an awful bad precedent (not that this whole charade hasn't been doing that since minute 1 though...)
It does however highlight just how poorly the Trump administration is able to manage the trappings of state. I cannot imagine this having happened under a Dubya or McCain or a Romney.
Vaktathi wrote: Jesus the federal institutions are having a meltdown, the acting AG is refusing to defend Trumps EO ban (not sure how I feel about an "acting" official doing their own thing just because they can get away with it though) and State dept is issuing internal dissent memos.
Apparently actually managing the govt was not in the cards .
This is wonderfully poetic in a way.
I mean, in much the same way an exploding plane can be a visually stunning spectacle sure, but I don't want to be on the plane
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 00:45:11
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
While I support the position the acting AG is coming from, I find myself uncomfortable with the act itself, someone in that position doing whatever they want just because they disagree with the new administration for the short time they're in there sets an awful bad precedent (not that this whole charade hasn't been doing that since minute 1 though...)
If she resigns then the entire system comes tumbling down, however if the Nurnberg Trials taught us anything its that following orders is not a defence. She knows that she's out the door and in knowing that she is taking a stand against, or at least not defending an EO that she feels is unconstitutional and very probably illegal.
She's walking a very fine line trying not to betray her job or her ethics/morals.
Good on her.
Cheers
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
I was thinking about this in general the other day (not necessarily directly relating to America but in general).
And I came to the conclusion that polite, yet firm dissent from someone taking what they view as unjust, unethical or illegal instructions from seniors in an organisation (either public or private) is far better for the world as a whole rather than just simply resigning.
Resigning is better personally, you'd get benefits, recommendation letters, maybe a golden parachute. However, ultimately, all it means is, although your life is easier and your conscience is clear, resigning just means that when they hire, as part of standard business practices, they'll just get someone in who will play ball.
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
Is it? As I understand it, if she goes then the Attorney Generals office stops working. What outcry would result on someone walking out on the new President in his first week.
She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
whembly wrote: The ethical thing to do is to resign in protest. That's make a statement.
No, the ethical thing to do is to obstruct an immoral act as long as possible.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
