US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms

[TrackerNeil]

He's more moderate than a lot of current Republicans, but he's not as moderate as Huntsman (or Christie for that matter). And he can hide his biggest moderate stance, pro-immigration reform with path to citizenship, by just attacking Obama's executive order and ignoring what reform he would enact. Also, he's extremely anti-abortion, and can get a lot of red meat milage out of that I think.

I feel as though Jeb's real strength lies in boxing out folks like Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Mitt Romney, who would likely depend on the same donors and institutional supporters. I guess he might find himself open to charges of being a RINO, particularly if a conservative with unquestionable credentials gets in the race. You could see a loony candidate like Tailgunner Ted or Rand Paul on the far right, Jeb on the (for conservatives) far left, and someone like Mike Pence trying to carve out a space in between. Not sure just how good a performer Pence is, though.

You know Marco Rubio can't be happy about this.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I feel as though Jeb's real strength lies in boxing out folks like Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Mitt Romney, who would likely depend on the same donors and institutional supporters. I guess he might find himself open to charges of being a RINO, particularly if a conservative with unquestionable credentials gets in the race. You could see a loony candidate like Tailgunner Ted or Rand Paul on the far right, Jeb on the (for conservatives) far left, and someone like Mike Pence trying to carve out a space in between. Not sure just how good a performer Pence is, though.

You know Marco Rubio can't be happy about this.

What does "far right" even mean any more? Wanting to end the war on drugs (largely because of its racism), scale back the NSA, opposing police militarization, a restrained foreign policy, etc.?

[Fez]

Why do you suspect that? Has she ever been quoted anywhere as saying she wants to run for any political office? In other words, do you have any evidence or is this just pure speculation?

Yes. (At least under the right circumstances). Used to be, she said she had no interest in running for office. Then last year she said multiple times that she'd be open to it. She's also steadily gotten more involved in Clinton Foundation fundraising and dealing with press on various occasions; whereas she used to stay entirely out of the public eye.

[karaddin]

What does "far right" even mean any more? Wanting to end the war on drugs (largely because of its racism), scale back the NSA, opposing police militarization, a restrained foreign policy, etc.?

Fair objection really. I'd frame it more as a Santorum or Perry type (woo executions! hooray! my state has killed 50 people, fuck yeah!) running on the far right, with Rand Paul on the Libertarian Right. They are definitely different positions.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Fair objection really. I'd frame it more as a Santorum or Perry type (woo executions! hooray! my state has killed 50 people, fuck yeah!) running on the far right, with Rand Paul on the Libertarian Right. They are definitely different positions.

Agreed. The types who openly bible-thump while championing a militarist foreign policy seem much more fitting candidates for the "far right" label.

[The Anti-Targ]

We dumped some water on KSM, got OBL's courier name which led to OBL. KSM who planned the murder of thousands of innocents and cut off Daniel Pearl's head.

Hardly anyone loses any sleep over that tradeoff.

It's like gun control, all the sanctimony in the world isn't going to change people's minds. Don't know why Dems keep beating that drum.

Except the report says the intelligence that lead to the courier and ultimately to Bin Laden was not obtained via torture and specifically not from pouring water on KSM. According to the report the CIA already knew about the courier before any sort of water play with KSM.

So basically you have some ex-CIA tpoeple who have a very real need to try to defend the actions of the CIA or either see themselves or their friends face prosecution, coming out and claiming all the benefits of torture and that what they did wasn't torture. I'm not entirely sure how they're framing their defence, they tortured but they saved lives? Or what they did does not meet the legal definition of torture, so it doesn't matter how effective it was it was all legal.

If people are all for cruel and unusual punishment for crimes committed that's a different kind of sickness of the mind. But at least it has a logical consistency to it. But the fact (or at least the fairly reliable theory) that torture yields no actionable intelligence that less cruel and unusual means of intelligence gathering can obtain, and often it yields false information, should in the very least convince people that the CIA should find better and more reliable ways to operate. And there's no sanctimony necessary to advance that argument.

If people are still after blood vengeance then they can always lobby congress to pass laws that will allow the authorities to engage in a bit of pain and humiliation before putting terrorists to death / imprisoning them for the rest of their lives. If you're down for a bit of that then fine, but don't confuse that with obtaining actual useful information that leads to the foiling of plots and the capturing of other terrorists. I'll let others decide whether the current membership of congress would have the numbers to pass such a law.

[Altherion]

If people are still after blood vengeance then they can always lobby congress to pass laws that will allow the authorities to engage in a bit of pain and humiliation before putting terrorists to death / imprisoning them for the rest of their lives. If you're down for a bit of that then fine, but don't confuse that with obtaining actual useful information that leads to the foiling of plots and the capturing of other terrorists. I'll let others decide whether the current membership of congress would have the numbers to pass such a law.

Actually, Congress alone cannot do much against the Eighth Amendment (which is being fairly blatantly violated here, regardless of whether useful information was obtained or not). To change it would require not just two-thirds of Congress, but also the support of 38 states so it's not going to happen.

[Shryke]

The funny thing about Clinton v Bush 2016 is that the Democratic attack ads write themselves.

1000x iterations of "Bush years vs Clinton years".

[Shryke]

Agreed. The types who openly bible-thump while championing a militarist foreign policy seem much more fitting candidates for the "far right" label.

Just different kinds of far right.

[Shryke]

I feel as though Jeb's real strength lies in boxing out folks like Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Mitt Romney, who would likely depend on the same donors and institutional supporters. I guess he might find himself open to charges of being a RINO, particularly if a conservative with unquestionable credentials gets in the race. You could see a loony candidate like Tailgunner Ted or Rand Paul on the far right, Jeb on the (for conservatives) far left, and someone like Mike Pence trying to carve out a space in between. Not sure just how good a performer Pence is, though.

You know Marco Rubio can't be happy about this.

Yeah, that's the thing about the position Jeb or any of these guys would be staking out. It's not the populist position, it's the moneyed position. And now REALLY moneyed after the GOP just hugely raised the cap for individual contributions.

They are all competing to convince the big money bags that they are the Great White Hope. And in that field, Jeb may have alot of clout, coming from a long line of Great White Hopes.

And as Romney demonstrated in 2012, that's all you really need. Romney won because he was the establishment money candidate.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Just different kinds of far right.

So it basically all comes down to fiscal views? Two candidates can disagree on everything else but as long they both support cutting taxes/spending they are "right-wing"?

Just goes to show how "right" and "left" are stupid labels to begin with.

[Shryke]

So it basically all comes down to fiscal views? Two candidates can disagree on everything else but as long they both support cutting taxes/spending they are "right-wing"?

Just goes to show how "right" and "left" are stupid labels to begin with.

No, it doesn't. It shows that anti-government-action, low-tax stances are, in fact, right wing.

That's the opposite of it being a stupid label, that's it being a consistent label for a specific thing.

[Seli]

So it basically all comes down to fiscal views? Two candidates can disagree on everything else but as long they both support cutting taxes/spending they are "right-wing"?

Just goes to show how "right" and "left" are stupid labels to begin with.

No it is the traditional 'power for those who have power!' usage of right wing, which goes back to the original usage. With different focal points for different political stances.

[Ramsay Gimp]

No, it doesn't. It shows that anti-government-action, low-tax stances are, in fact, right wing.

That's the opposite of it being a stupid label, that's it being a consistent label for a specific thing.

Yes, it does. Pedantic snobbery aside, you're just describing the way the word is currently used ("in fact"). I'm saying the way it's currently used is stupid.

If two candidates have "right-wing" economic views, then say so. Don't just list both of them as "right-wing" if they have starkly different views on everything else.

I realize it's comforting for you, Shryke, to put Dick Cheney, the Pauls, and Hitler all in the same political category. Doesn't mean it makes sense

No it is the traditional 'power for those who have power!' usage of right wing, which goes back to the original usage. With different focal points for different political stances.

But no one actually claims that as their position, and it doesn't fit Rand Paul anyway, so it's really just a pejorative rather than an objective classification

[Darzin]

Speaking of Rand Paul anyone read this article in the huffington post about why liberals should vote for Rand Paul?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

I'm undecided as of yet, but I have to admit he makes some good points and Rand Paul is the only one of the current Republican contenders I wold seriously consider voting for. Regardless I'll vote for him in the Republican primary, and be pulling he gets the nomination.

[TrackerNeil]

Speaking of Rand Paul anyone read this article in the huffington post about why liberals should vote for Rand Paul?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

I'm undecided as of yet, but I have to admit he makes some good points and Rand Paul is the only one of the current Republican contenders I wold seriously consider voting for. Regardless I'll vote for him in the Republican primary, and be pulling he gets the nomination.

I think Goodman is terribly naive about politics. I really do think all presidents of one party are alike, except on the small things (choice of chief of staff) and the really big things (Iraq). Any Democrat elected in 2008 would have pushed for stimulus, been generally supportive of the ACA, signed Lily Leadbetter, etc, and any Republican elected in 2016 is going to help cut taxes for the wealthy, cooperate in restricting abortion, and oppose any sort of accountability for torture. Rand Paul, should he be elected president would govern like pretty much any Republican president, because he'll have had to promise to do so to get the nomination. It's possible to dream up scenarios in which President Paul strikes out on his own on drones and surveillance and foreign policy, but were he to be so bold he'd quickly find himself alone in Washington, abandoned by his own party and unable to get anything significant done. Presidents just don't work that way.

Also, Goodman's assertion "he doesn't want to gut Social Security" as proof of Paul's independence is just risible. The fact that Paul wouldn't shred the social safety net quite as much as, say Paul Ryan, shouldn't make him appealing to a self-proclaimed liberal, or that he's "addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations." Who cares what he's "addressed" if he won't introduce and support legislation to end that love affair?

I also question Goodman's commitment to liberal values if he's so eager to back a candidate who has stated he didn't like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oh, wait...no, Rand Paul loves that law. More than you, in fact. However, assuming Paul told it right the first time, then Goodman's backing a candidate who would in his secret heart like to see the nation turned back into a land where the economy doesn't service black people as well as whites. That's an incredibly privileged viewpoint to take, and not a very liberal one.

Finally, all this nonsense about getting conservatives and liberals to socialize with each other is foolish. Liberals and conservatives don't disagree because each finds the other personally uninviting; they disagree because they value different things. A few Sunday brunches aren't going to make Pat Toomey more supportive of abortion rights, nor Elizabeth Warren back corporate welfare.

In short, I think Goodman doesn't understand much about politics, people, or even his own supposed liberal values.

[awesome possum]

Rand Paul, June 2013:

"If we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."

In other words, men marrying men and women marrying women can lead to economic ruin because single heterosexuals with children are a leading cause of poverty.

That's both far-right nonsense and incredibly stupid. And I'd say it should preclude him from any type of public office but it doesn't only because that type of stupid is the average for the Republican party these days.

I don't really care about the rest of his issues. If he's for the systematic exclusion of millions of Americans from being full participants in society, then fuck him.

[Fez]

From the "About fucking time" files:

The Associated Press ‏@AP 9m9 minutes ago

BREAKING: US officials: US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full diplomatic relations, open embassy.

This comes on the heels of news earlier this morning that Cuba had released Alan Gross and that Obama and Castro would both be making official statements on US-Cuba relations at 12pm EST today.

ETA: Probably related, the head of USAID, who's been under investigation for trying to use twitter as a way to stir up domestic unrest in Cuba, resigned today.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Rand Paul, June 2013:

In other words, men marrying men and women marrying women can lead to economic ruin because single heterosexuals with children are a leading cause of poverty.

That's both far-right nonsense and incredibly stupid. And I'd say it should preclude him from any type of public office but it doesn't only because that type of stupid is the average for the Republican party these days.

I don't really care about the rest of his issues. If he's for the systematic exclusion of millions of Americans from being full participants in society, then fuck him.

Why wouldn't you post the link you got this from?

[awesome possum]

Why wouldn't you post the link you got this from?

Why would you care? Do you think I invented that quote of his? Or are you of the mindset that attacking the link will somehow make him not a sycophant to homophobes if not a homophobe himself?

Anyway, here you go:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm