US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[BloodRider]

See if Texas GOP finally paint themselves into that corner.

[awesome possum]

Nope, Cornyn won. It's a sad day in American politics when someone like John Cornyn winning is a good sign.

Greg Abbot vs. Wendy Davis for Governor.

[awesome possum]

I wonder how this news will affect those who have their fingers crossed in breathless anticipation that the ACA is going to crash and burn any minute now?

And source

To be exact, President Obama's 2010 health law was responsible for about three-quarters of a surprising January rise in U.S. consumer spending and American income growth, according to calculations by the Wall Street Journal.

While not exceptional, the gains were significant: a 0.4 percent rise in consumer spending ($45.2 billion) and a 0.3 percent rise in personal incomes (up $43.9 billion), according to new figures released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The growth came in spite of the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and all that horrible winter weather.

So what exactly did the Obamacare rollout do to cause such a rise? For one, it expanded the Medicaid program, a critical and highly controversial aspect of the law, by adding up to a $19 billion in benefits in January. On top of that, health care enrollees additionally received another near $15 billion in the form of tax credits as a result of the rollout, according to the BEA.

Together the two changes have freed up many Americans to spend money that would have gone towards health care premiums on goods and services instead.

But no, seriously guys, just wait. It's going to start failing hard any minute now!

[Inigima]

AP: I don't disagree, but you aren't addressing the fundamental complaints of the conservative wing. They don't think those things are bad, they just think those things carry an infeasible price tag.

[Commodore]

Davis has a real shot, I encourage all Dem donors to steer their donations to her and help turn Texas blue.

[Balefont]

I think it's more likely that the general trend is extreme religiosity and the ensuing social positions it forces the GOP to take turn many not-extremely-religious voters off.

And religion forces the "Party of Freedom" to make laws that encroach or deny basic rights. (Like marriage equality)

[TrackerNeil]

Davis has a real shot, I encourage all Dem donors to steer their donations to her and help turn Texas blue.

Even if not, I encourage Dems to steer donations towards her. Every dollar she spends will be a dollar her Republican opponent will feel obliged to counter, and that's one less dollar that goes to a race we're more likely to win.

Huh...who knew I'd agree with Commodore?

[awesome possum]

AP: I don't disagree, but you aren't addressing the fundamental complaints of the conservative wing. They don't think those things are bad, they just think those things carry an infeasible price tag.

Fair enough. I think they are just as wrong as the ones screaming incoherently about socialism.

[Madfunkymonkey]

And religion forces the "Party of Freedom" to make laws that encroach or deny basic rights. (Like marriage equality)

What about if the people in a state VOTE for something and one person over-rides the people's decision?

[Durckad]

If the law fundamentally discriminates against a subset of the population, then I don't think it should matter where and how it originated.

Or would you feel the same way if the Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutional?

[Sci-2]

What about if the people in a state VOTE for something and one person over-rides the people's decision?

IMO mob-rule is a terrible way to ensure a functioning society. Just because people get together and try to circumscribe rights doesn't mean it should be allowed to stand.

Otherwise what's the point of a judicial branch?

[TrackerNeil]

What about if the people in a state VOTE for something and one person over-rides the people's decision?

If it's a decision that's out of sync with the Constitution, then I say, "Faster, pussycat. Kill! Kill!"

[Inigima]

What about if the people in a state VOTE for something and one person over-rides the people's decision?

The whole point of guaranteeing Constitutional rights is that some things are so fundamental that you can't have a bunch of dipshits trampling on them, even if there happen to be a lot of them. The grade-school explanation of this concept is that it's important to avoid tyranny of the majority.

[Sci-2]

Tonight at 6:30 EST ->

Debate: The President Has Constitutional Power to Target and Kill U.S. Citizens Abroad

FOR THE MOTION: Alan Dershowitz, Michael Lewis

AGAINST THE MOTION: Noah Feldman, Hina Shamsi

eta: Definitely will be a podcast, ideally video will be available as well. Was a good debate, I'm still undecided about the issue.

[Gneisenau]

Tonight at 6:30 EST ->

Debate: The President Has Constitutional Power to Target and Kill U.S. Citizens Abroad

FOR THE MOTION: Alan Dershowitz, Michael Lewis

AGAINST THE MOTION: Noah Feldman, Hina Shamsi

eta: Definitely will be a podcast, ideally video will be available as well. Was a good debate, I'm still undecided about the issue.

So were you convinced to change your opinion ?

[Sci-2]

So were you convinced to change your opinion ?

Undecided, before and after the debate.

I think it's hard to decide constitutional power of the POTUS for a situation the founding fathers didn't necessarily foresee.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think it's hard to decide constitutional power of the POTUS for a situation the founding fathers didn't necessarily foresee.

Eh, the due process clause seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[jarl the climber]

Davis has a real shot, I encourage all Dem donors to steer their donations to her and help turn Texas blue.

It wasn't that long ago that Texas did have a female democratic governor(Ann Richards). Democrats used to be able to win in the South.

[Sci-2]

Eh, the due process clause seems pretty clear-cut to me.

So you agree with Shamsi[?]:

Violating the ideals he pledged to uphold

This is not the law. Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process.

The program's defenders, however, argue that the president must be able to take lethal action against targets "who pose a continuing and imminent threat" and who are too risky to capture, as the president explained last May. But if, as reported, the Justice Department has the time to build a case against a suspected terrorist for months, then the threat he presents is not imminent. And if the threat is not imminent, then the administration's arguments for killing, and against external judicial review, fall away.

[TrackerNeil]

Tonight at 6:30 EST ->

Debate: The President Has Constitutional Power to Target and Kill U.S. Citizens Abroad

FOR THE MOTION: Alan Dershowitz, Michael Lewis

AGAINST THE MOTION: Noah Feldman, Hina Shamsi

eta: Definitely will be a podcast, ideally video will be available as well. Was a good debate, I'm still undecided about the issue.

This is good. I can't believe Alan Dershowitz is actually defining the threat of a hostage-taker as non-imminent. Criminy.

Edited to add: I should have been surprised how eager the audience was to permit the president to unilaterally kill US citizens, but, sadly, I am not. The destruction of the World Trade Center taught me that Americans are willing and even eager to hand government overwhelming authority to curtail liberty as long as they themselves don't feel particularly curtailed.