US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[aeu]

27 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

Blacman sort of chimes in on this.  What he is sayng seems reasonable to me, but I'm certainly no expert on this stuff.

 

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/02/06/second-guessing-on-national-security/

 

 

 

 

I can see the theoretical argument.  It seems to bring up further interesting and challenging topics but leaving those aside, it is true that the confidential nature of national security creates a difference.

 

However, this seems to be ultimately irrelevant in this case, since as far as I know, the genesis of the order is not some confidential information.    Now I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes one of the new talking points for the WH but based on the history / timeline / arguments so far, there is no reason to assume that confidential info play any role in this.  (Personally, I think the evidence suggests that it is very unlikely for confidential info to play a role, but that's just me).  So, I don't think statements like this do not apply:

"But here, unlike in the abortion caselaw, where facts are known to the world, the government (purportedly) has some evidence that is private that justifies their decisions. "

Overall, this seems to be an attempt to position the order as something it really is not and defend that position.  Personally, I prefer Commodore's arguments (president has absolute authority on this and courts cannot question it).  At least, it is intellectually honest.  But it has uncomfortable implications, so it appears that people want to dance around it. 

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

10 minutes ago, aeu said:

 

Overall, this seems to be an attempt to position the order as something it really is not and defend that position.  Personally, I prefer Commodore's arguments (president has absolute authority on this and courts cannot question it).  At least, it is intellectually honest.  But it has uncomfortable implications, so it appears that people want to dance around it. 

 

 

The problem is, the President is not a king.

 

For those of you who were arguing about Nazis in the last thread, you should be watching PBS's American Experience on the Oklahoma bombing and the Nazi group The Order.

[JGP]

22 minutes ago, aeu said:

 

I can see the theoretical argument.  It seems to bring up further interesting and challenging topics but leaving those aside, it is true that the confidential nature of national security creates a difference.

 

However, this seems to be ultimately irrelevant in this case, since as far as I know, the genesis of the order is not some confidential information.    Now I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes one of the new talking points for the WH but based on the history / timeline / arguments so far, there is no reason to assume that confidential info play any role in this.  (Personally, I think the evidence suggests that it is very unlikely for confidential info to play a role, but that's just me).  So, I don't think statements like this do not apply:

"But here, unlike in the abortion caselaw, where facts are known to the world, the government (purportedly) has some evidence that is private that justifies their decisions. "

Overall, this seems to be an attempt to position the order as something it really is not and defend that position.  Personally, I prefer Commodore's arguments (president has absolute authority on this and courts cannot question it).  At least, it is intellectually honest.  But it has uncomfortable implications, so it appears that people want to dance around it. 

 

 

Ah, but that's the thing. The Spec. Counsel was making that very claim, but when questioned directly he mispoke [imo] in relating that it was the President's opinion [paraphrased] which begs further questioning. He was also asked by the Court if there were investigations or issues of National Security that weren't reviewable, and even then he fumbled citing that this was/is the President's call to make essentially [just as commodore is alleging] It's like they're begging for a fight with the Judiciary.

One of the other Judges then asked that if the EO had been written as a ban against Muslims, could it be challenged as unconstitutional... and there was dead silence, as I'm sure there aren't many people who are following the political upheaval in the States that haven't read reports of Trump and/or his Admin asking Guliani how to eek this ban by-- the presiding Judges included.

I'm skimming over a lot there, but if Appeals doesn't kick this back to the District Court and the Executive pushes it further-- the whole idea that the POTUS has unilateral discretion in these types of decisions is going to get seriously challenged. And with Trump aping his chin at the Judiciary, I can't imagine it's going to work out painlessly.  

 

ETA: This is a serious gloss over, but those are the remarks that stood out for me when considering your post, aeu

[aeu]

16 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

One of the other Judges then asked that if the EO had been written as a ban against Muslims, could it be challenged as unconstitutional... and there was dead silence, as I'm sure there aren't many people who are following the political upheaval in the States that haven't read reports of Trump and/or his Admin asking Guliani how to eek this ban by-- the presiding Judges included.

Heh, yeah, those are the uncomfortable implications    I listened to the recording now, the judges kept asking that question and the poor DOJ lawyer kept dancing..."That is not what this  order does."  "Yes, we know that" "But, your honor, that is not this order does" "Yes, I know!" 

Overall, I can't say who is right.  Unlimited power to make a decision unilaterally seems absurd, but who knows.  Yet, I still like that as an argument (coming from the other side) because at least, it is an honest argument.  I disagree with it, but it does not seem to be disingenuous effort to willfully mislead people.  

I 

 

 

[aeu]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I predict that by the end of Trump's first term we will have single payer health care, voted in by the Republicans that will be "managed" by selected private insurance companies.  Medicare will be gone and will have been replaced by this system as well.  We will pay for it with tax cuts.

 

I was curious about this comment.  Are you serious about this?

 

[ThinkerX]

30 minutes ago, aeu said:

I was curious about this comment.  Are you serious about this?

 

Something like this may represent the best 'out' for Republicans, especially given the backlash from their voters.  There is even modest precedent of sorts - Medicaid (?) Part D. 

So, next step, something that is effectively Medicaid Part E (for everybody), paid for with an increase in the relevant tax, which the Republicans then (successfully) blame on the Democrats.  Possibly combined with giving Medicaid real authority to negotiate with medical/drug providers (said providers then donate megabucks to the opponents of those who voted for this provision, most of whom will just happen to be democrats).

End result: Republicans get to claim they abolished evil Obamacare, saved the healthcare system, and severely crippled the democratic party in the process.  

[Fragile Bird]

Now WTF?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been reprimanded and muzzled for reading the letter MLK's widow Coretta Scott King wrote about Jeff Sessions.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8690414/elizabeth-warren-jeff-sessions-coretta-scott-king-hearing-mitch-mcconnell/

[Gertrude]

Yeah, I saw the Warren thing.

sidetrack - when watching people comment on this, one of the commenters did something I really despise. He pointedly referred to Sessions as 'Jefferson Beauregard Sessions'. What the fuck does that have to do with anything regarding his qualifications? As little as Barack Hussein Obama's name had to do with his qualifications. If you want to call Sessions a racist, do it by citing examples of it, not by calling up the specter of the old south. Minor rant over.

[all swedes are racist]

34 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Yeah, I saw the Warren thing.

sidetrack - when watching people comment on this, one of the commenters did something I really despise. He pointedly referred to Sessions as 'Jefferson Beauregard Sessions'. What the fuck does that have to do with anything regarding his qualifications? As little as Barack Hussein Obama's name had to do with his qualifications. If you want to call Sessions a racist, do it by citing examples of it, not by calling up the specter of the old south. Minor rant over.

but did he use the foghorn leghorn voice?

[Sivin]

I'm not sure I get why this is news. And Warren clearly doesn't comprehend the new political dynamics if she was confused by McConnell telling her to fuck off. 

This battle is over, not realizing that Republicans don't give a damn about the words of a citizen opposed to their ideology is exactly why she should be primaried out in 2 years.

We need someone who will fight while the battle can still be won.

[alguien]

52 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Now WTF?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been reprimanded and muzzled for reading the letter MLK's widow Coretta Scott King wrote about Jeff Sessions.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8690414/elizabeth-warren-jeff-sessions-coretta-scott-king-hearing-mitch-mcconnell/

Apparently the GOP Senators are such sensitive snowflakes that they can't handle a little criticism. You know, from Dr. King's wife.

[all swedes are racist]

17 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I'm not sure I get why this is news. And Warren clearly doesn't comprehend the new political dynamics if she was confused by McConnell telling her to fuck off. 

This battle is over, not realizing that Republicans don't give a damn about the words of a citizen opposed to their ideology is exactly why she should be primaried out in 2 years.

We need someone who will fight while the battle can still be won.

wut? 

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, chairman lmao said:

wut? 

I'm sick of hearing about St. Warren and how she would have saved the party by running and beating the turrible Clinton. 

She's a goddamn loser, just like Sanders and Reid and all the other special snowflake high profile or leadership members of the party. They and their brand of kumbaya idiocy got us into this mess where Republicans are dead set on ruinous agendas while Democrats bleat uselessly about topics that are doomed from the word go.

If they're surprised by anything happening now it's because they've been negligent past the point of forgiveness.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

29 minutes ago, chairman lmao said:

but did he use the foghorn leghorn voice?

 

[all swedes are racist]

27 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I'm sick of hearing about St. Warren and how she would have saved the party by running and beating the turrible Clinton. 

She's a goddamn loser, just like Sanders and Reid and all the other special snowflake high profile or leadership members of the party. They and their brand of kumbaya idiocy got us into this mess where Republicans are dead set on ruinous agendas while Democrats bleat uselessly about topics that are doomed from the word go.

If they're surprised by anything happening now it's because they've been negligent past the point of forgiveness.

lol wut? like, i'm honestly not even sure what you are getting at here. it's everyone's fault but clinton's? 

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, chairman lmao said:

but did he use the foghorn leghorn voice?

You joke, but damn, I've heard some shitty drawls put on to pronounce his name. A Leghorn voice would be better.

[Sivin]

11 minutes ago, chairman lmao said:

lol wut? like, i'm honestly not even sure what you are getting at here. it's everyone's fault but clinton's? 

Clinton is dead to me, she is no longer worth contempt.

[aeu]

14 minutes ago, chairman lmao said:

lol wut? like, i'm honestly not even sure what you are getting at here. it's everyone's fault but clinton's? 

WinterFox has a point.  I'm sure Warren is a lovely person and her heart is in the right place but she is not the kind to win "no-rules, winner takes all" fights against the likes of Bannon and McConnell (or Karl Roves of yesteryear).  Neither is Sanders.  

Though I don't know if there is any obvious solution. This seems to be in Dems DNA for a while now.  Also, they lost so much ground over the years, I don't think the representatives matter at this point. They simply can't do much, if  anything meaningful.

[Sivin]

Let me say this. I had a frustrating evening and purposely went a little overboard to blow off some steam. But my very real issues with the current democratic leadership aside, I think Warren made a fool out of herself with this situation and demonstrated why she is not someone we need to keep around.

The reading of Mrs. King's letter was a good political act. Dems have no power, and it could be a fun little talking point that not one Republican (inevitably) gave weight to it. Hell, maybe the willful disregard of such a notable source's decades old council could even make waves down the line should Sessions be a disaster. 

That's all good.

But then McConnell doesn't even let her finish the letter!?! And nobody says a fucking word against him!?! WOW!!! Jackpot! 

The Republicans literally just told you they don't want to hear what the wife of an actual American icon said about a person subject to senate review. Not just that they don't care, but aren't even willing to listen.

And what does Warren do? She tells us how surprised she is. Just how all the other Democrats are surprised at all of the nasty things the Republicans are allowing the world to see they stand for. 

Fuck that! This is who they are! Who they've been! Take 'em out to the woodshed for this crap. Don't act indignant, act enraged! Quit the session, demand press coverage, go all the way! Do something!

Or tweet how you didn't see this coming.

[Ice Queen]

I have a question. If the decision comes down that Trump's ban is illegal and he refuses to abide by it...is that an impeachable offense? The three branches are equal--the executive doesn't get to do whatever the hell he wants.