Jump to content

U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, all of that is true. But she also told Israel to back off and let the US deal with it. 

Link? I couldn't find any reputable sources that make that exact claim. She clearly played a role, but it sounds like she was telling them to back down for now while promising to help militarily with other problematic actors in the region. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Link? I couldn't find any reputable sources that make that exact claim. She clearly played a role, but it sounds like she was telling them to back down for now while promising to help militarily with other problematic actors in the region. 

That sounds about right, and that goes with what she did. Her goal was to make sure that our allies (in this case Israel) felt supported in the event that shit did hit the fan, but diplomacy was the first goal. 

At the time there were a lot of people calling for the US to actually attack Iran, so this wasn't just following the will of the people either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the Texas Republican Party has suddenly become amazingly progressive, or they're in dire need of a copyeditor:

How The Wrong Verb Meant The Texas GOP Called Most Texans Gay

Statement in question: 

Quote

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2016 at 8:26 PM, Maester Drew said:

I advocate peace.

Oh wow! If only someone had advocated for peace all those decades ago, we could have averted so much not-peace! What a fantastic and revolutionary idea! I strongly urge you to run for office on the profound platform of Advocating For Peace so that you can truly change the world, in a way that a disappointing warmongering lightweight like Obama has failed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/17/2016 at 7:29 PM, Kalbear said:

How do you achieve that? I suspect a great many people would like to know the answer. 

But since you completely chickened out of the question, I'll answer it more directly: what actions do you advocate taking in Afghanistan? What should Obama have done differently that would make you approve of him more? 

And if you advocate peace and hate that we're still in Afghanistan, why are you voting for Sanders given that he also voted to fight the war in Afghanistan and has voted to fund it every single year he's been a senator?

Honestly, I don't know. Simply because no matter what course is taken, there will still be suffering in some form or another. There really wasn't anything Obama (or McCain and Romney if they had won) could do that would have reduced the pain wrought on the Afghans or the devastation on their homeland.

Anyone asked, "what should be done in Afghanistan?" is like asking Queen Helaena which one of her sons should die. So, if I had to make such a utilitarian choice like she did, I'd say leave Afghanistan and wash our hands of it. Let Ghani's government stand or fall on its own and focus our energies on supporting our allies against ISIS.

Secondly, I am not absolutely against war. I understand that sometimes military force is a necessity, but any military action must be quick and decisive, and Afghanistan was neither.

Finally, on Sanders. So? I don't have a checklist wherein any candidate I support must meet every single point, that'd be ridiculous. So even if Sanders has/had a position I don't agree with, it doesn't mean I must therefore withdraw my support. He ain't a perfect candidate, no one is.

On 5/19/2016 at 6:50 PM, DanteGabriel said:

Oh wow! If only someone had advocated for peace all those decades ago, we could have averted so much not-peace! What a fantastic and revolutionary idea! I strongly urge you to run for office on the profound platform of Advocating For Peace so that you can truly change the world, in a way that a disappointing warmongering lightweight like Obama has failed to do.

What?! :o I ain't the first one to want peace? Gasp! This is quite the revelation! :rolleyes:

PS: Your sarcasm fell flat at me running for office since I ain't at least twenty-five years old. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

Secondly, I am not absolutely against war. I understand that sometimes military force is a necessity, but any military action must be quick and decisive, and Afghanistan was neither.

Can you give us a couple of examples of "quick and decisive" wars in the past 50 years or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Obama quietly is killing big banks with small cuts.

Quote

 

While attention has focused on the 2016 presidential campaign and the drama of Senate Republicans' blockade of Merrick Garland, the Obama administration has been quietly undertaking a series of tough, obscure, progressive economic policy measures that seriously threaten the bottom lines of America's once untouchable banks.

Today comes a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule restoring customers' right to sue banks for misconduct, following announcements in April of new rules ontax inversions and financial advising, along with hints of a substantial crackdown onshell companies.

None of this is as dramatic or easy to explain as a few CEOs being dragged off in handcuffs, but it adds up to a big agenda that — if sustained by the next administration — could do a lot to cut into the size of the American financial sector.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Good. This, among other reasons, is why I like him way more than I dislike him.

These were all suggestions of Clinton's campaign and specifically were named things that Clinton could do in order to rein in big banks without breaking them up. Specifically, the 'holding banks accountable' part is all part of that plan, and one she specifically suggested. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

These were all suggestions of Clinton's campaign and specifically were named things that Clinton could do in order to rein in big banks without breaking them up. Specifically, the 'holding banks accountable' part is all part of that plan, and one she specifically suggested. 

Then I applaud her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

But.... Wait a second...  i thought the new DNC talking point was that ti wasn't big banks that were the problem?

That's still true and if you'd actually bothered to read the article instead of trying to snipe occasionally, you'd have know that.

None of those really break up big banks so much as they try and cut down on various unwanted behaviours by the the financial sector through various means.

I mean, the last 2 paragraphs of the article say exactly this:

Quote

 

What they are doing with this suite of new rules is something different but thematically aligned — shrinking the financial sector as a whole by cracking down on many of its sources of revenues. Right now in the United States there are no particularly large auto dealership companies, but auto dealerships as a whole are very big business. Similarly, finance as a whole could be big even if it were fragmented into midsize banks. Conversely, finance as a whole can shrink without becoming less concentrated.

All three new rules shrink the financial sector by cutting down on lucrative activities that have nothing to do with finance's core social purpose of channeling funds to economically useful activities. The nature of the regulatory process is that each rule needs to be justified on its own narrow terms, but putting them all together reveals a surprisingly activist Obama administration that's still at work in its last year on putting banking in its place.

 

So, you know, seriously bro, maybe try harder with the snark next time? This one was just easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this happened today:

Quote

 

President Barack Obama on Wednesday called for an expansion of Social Security benefits, saying that the program was more necessary than ever to support an aging population.

Speaking at a high school in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama noted there are some Americans who don't have retirement savings and those who might not be able to save money because they are unable to pay the bills.

"We can't afford to weaken Social Security, we should be strengthening Social Security," Obama said. "And not only do we need to strengthen its long term health, it's time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so today's retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned."

Obama suggested the country pay for expanding Social Security by asking the "wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more."

"They can afford it," he added. "I can afford it."

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-proposes-expanding-social-security

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty big ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Quote

On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Constitution does not grant citizens the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. The decision, Peruta v. San Diego, is likely to be the last word on this litigation: It was issued en banc, meaning the plaintiffs’ only remaining hope is a Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court, which makes a habit of avoiding gun cases these days. Even if the justices did take the case, it’s difficult to see how they could justify reversing Thursday’s ruling: The majority’s 41-page decision lays out a compelling, comprehensive analysis that that even fervid defenders of the right to bear arms should have trouble dismissing.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/09/ninth_circuit_rules_no_constitutional_right_to_concealed_carry_of_firearms.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...