US Politics: Clown Show Edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Damned doublepost. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG, IamMe90,

Neither is "Treason" under Article III of the US Constitution. As such I get tired of people of any political strip throwing out the word "treason" or "traitor" to score political points. Call them "shitheads" and be done with it:

[All-for-Joffrey]

DG, IamMe90,

Neither is "Treason" under Article III of the US Constitution. As such I get tired of people of any political strip throwing out the word "treason" or "traitor" to score political points. Call them "shitheads" and be done with it:

 

People were calling the letter treasonous on the grounds that it violates the Logan Act -- a relic from the 18th century. Technically the letter was illegal under that law but the Logan Act's never actually been enforced -- it's merely been used as a political talking point in the late 20th century when the oppossing party takes a position against a presidential foreign policy intiative. Never mind the fact that anyone who starts a change.org petition urging x despot to free y Americans would also technically be a violation of the act. Not to mention members of Congress taking trips to foreign countries and meeting with foreign government officials. It's just as well as it's a stupid law that's likely unconstiutional anyway.

[DanteGabriel]

DG, IamMe90,

Neither is "Treason" under Article III of the US Constitution. As such I get tired of people of any political strip throwing out the word "treason" or "traitor" to score political points. Call them "shitheads" and be done with it:

 

Okay, your protest on behalf of the dictionary is noted. Still no excuse for the terrible comparison to antiwar protesters.

 

Let's call them the America-hating, Teahadist GOP senators and representatives.

[IamMe90]

DG, IamMe90,

Neither is "Treason" under Article III of the US Constitution. As such I get tired of people of any political strip throwing out the word "treason" or "traitor" to score political points. Call them "shitheads" and be done with it:

It may not strictly constitute "treason" under article 3 but I think actively undermining the negotiations of your own democratically elected head of state is traitorous in spirit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG, IamMe90,

Right, policitial opponents never oppose the actions of the people to whom they are opposed politically. That would be unpossible.

Dislike what they are doing. Call them buttmunching ass clowns who care more about scoring political points than the health of the nation in international relations, just don't claim they are "traitors" when, in fact, they aren't.

[Fez]

Isn't there a major case right now of a public employee who doesn't want to pay union dues because they partially go towards supporting Democrats and he's a Republican?

 

Yeah there is, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association. The plaintiffs argue that mandatory union dues violate free speech protections. The Supreme Court is hearing it next term and public unions are terrified; protecting unions isn't likely to be an area where Kennedy joins the liberals. 

[DanteGabriel]

DG, IamMe90,

Right, policitial opponents never oppose the actions of the people to whom they are opposed politically. That would be unpossible.

Dislike what they are doing. Call them buttmunching ass clowns, just don't claim they are "traitors" when, in fact, they aren't.

 

Scot, do you not agree that it is a novel and untoward breach of protocol for members of a legislature to write directly to a hostile foreign power to undermine the negotiations of their own elected President? There is a wide gulf between normal political opposition and your precise definition of 'treason" -- and I really do think the GOP's actions during the Iran negotiations (especially when they involved Netanyahu) fall closer to the latter than the former.

Would it have just been mere "opposition" had the Democrats written to Saddam in 2002 and said, "Don't worry about Bush the Lesser when he threatens you over WMD inspections! We'll be around long after his administration!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

No, and yes. I would consider both the existing example and your hypothetical to be the actions of buttmuching ass clowns who care more about scoring political points than the health of their nation in international relations. Not treason.

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

No, and yes. I would consider both the existing example and your hypothetical to be the actions of buttmuching ass clowns who care more about scoring political points than the health of their nation in international relations. Not treason.

 

"Anti-American Teahadists" it is. Thank you Scot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

I think that's a fair invective.

[IamMe90]

DG,

No, and yes. I would consider both the existing example and your hypothetical to be the actions of buttmuching ass clowns who care more about scoring political points than the health of their nation in international relations. Not treason.

I've already acknowledged that their action does not constitute treason as it is defined in article 3. However, it seems that you're unwilling to acknowledge the difference between normal "political butt munching" and what we have in this case: lumping in both politicians just being douchey and politicians directly contacting hostile foreign officials to oppose presidential negotiations together seems disingenuous to me.

Edit: for precision's sake I guess I'll stop using "traitors" and I'll start using "Anti-American Teahadists" instead :D

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IamMe90,

That politicians act polticially tends not to shock me very much. But then I have a pretty low opinion of politicians.

[Swordfish]

 

Ah yes, billionaires moving from controlling our government via paid-for figure heads to outright saying fuck aforementioned paid-for figureheads and instead simply using their billions to directly take control of government themselves. The next step in our oligarchy. But hey, it's at least refreshing to see one of the said billionaires be so candid about it for once. #TheAmericanDream 

 

 

It's hardly something new.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/5-million-50-million-or-even-more-just-how-rich-is-hillary-clinton-heres-why-we-dont-know/

[Kalbear]

Teahadists is an awesome phrase. 

[IamMe90]

IamMe90,

That politicians act polticially tends not to shock me very much. But then I have a pretty low opinion of politicians.

It doesn't surprise me either, this particular instance just seemed more extreme/reckless than usual to myself and a lot of others. And it still doesn't surprise me, given this particular group of asshats, but it is nevertheless disgusting.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It's hardly something new.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/5-million-50-million-or-even-more-just-how-rich-is-hillary-clinton-heres-why-we-dont-know/

 

 

 Except the initial post cites billionaires. But what's a couple of zeros among friends?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

I love punishments for thinking independently. Don't you?

 

I understand that this is pure snark, but I bet you do agree with punishments for thinking independently in some circumstances.

 

If you're a member of an organization and you choose to depart from the values or, in the case of unions, stated purpose of that organization, of course the organization should have recourse to censure, punish, or expel you. It's ridiculous to say they shouldn't. You quite literally defeat the purpose of the union if you don't give it any power over its membership.

 

That's why I agree that it's ok for Congressional caucuses to strip or threaten rank, committee chairmanship, membership from members who step out of line, or act egregiously. It's why I think it's ok that Donald Sterling was fined by the NBA and banned from NBA events. Or Gob Bluth was kicked out of the magician's alliance for revealing secrets. There are any number of examples, because it's completely essential to any organization with any kind of coherent mission or public image to uphold.

 

I absolutely do not agree. Crossing a picket line is an action which goes against the main purpose of the union as it directly affects the union's bargaining with the employer about working conditions. Publicly advocating for a political candidate the union opposes is a very different issue to me and is tantamount to saying that only people who support certain political parties can be allowed to work in jobs where unions are strong. That is just wrong, IMHO.

 

First, everything I said to Scot above applies. Second, political advocacy is unquestionably one of the main purposes of unions, and is perhaps even more important than negotiation with management. The results of advocacy, of course, will have a major impact on their bargaining over wages and working conditions.

 

The fact is that unions exist in order to organize workers toward specific goals. It's implied in the need for this organization that cajoling and compulsion are required because workers would otherwise not act in unison. If you oppose this, you should oppose unions, period.

 

 I assume the leadership of the union are mostly male? So is using the term frightbat problematic when applied to them? But anyway nice troll.

 

The origin of the term is deeply offense and it's unfortunate that you don't care about that, but not at all surprising.

 

Onion is claiming that unions get to tell their members which political candidate they can support publicly. Let's take a breath and consider that....it's reasonable for a public employee union to tell a member who he can or can't publicly endorse. While ignoring whether or not it appropriate for a uniformed public employee to be seen endorsing anyone (which is a better point but not one Onion is making) but which also happens to be none of the unions fucking business but a responsibility of enforcing conduct codes on the part of the employer. This is an infringement on 1A rights (hows about a union telling a member they can't belong to a Church that condemns homosexuality for example?) and also shows how far these unions have crept into managerial decision making.

 

A profoundly stupid point, as the First Amendment only protects against government infringement of speech.

[Swordfish]

 

 

 Except the initial post cites billionaires. But what's a couple of zeros among friends?

 

 

Ha.  i knew that was coming.

 

That's all you got?  Pedantry?

 

So we're ok with the multi-multi millionaires, it's just the BILLIONAIRES we need to worry about?  You think that was the point of that post?

 

:rolleyes:

[Shryke]

I absolutely do not agree. Crossing a picket line is an action which goes against the main purpose of the union as it directly affects the union's bargaining with the employer about working conditions. Publicly advocating for a political candidate the union opposes is a very different issue to me and is tantamount to saying that only people who support certain political parties can be allowed to work in jobs where unions are strong. That is just wrong, IMHO.

 

Who is in power also directly affects the union's bargaining with the employer about working conditions.

 

One of the two parties is literally anti-union on every level.