US Politics: Redefining National Security

[Squab]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why? Do you even remotely care about hypocrisy? I doubt it

If (or when) Jeff Sessions decides the DOJ is not to defend something he doesn't agree with, I will be shocked if you defend him, as the principle doesn't seem to matter to you, just the side.

[The guy from the Vale]

Or you can't express yourself in a way that can be understood. Two can play that game, you know. I admit I prefer a conversation that doesn't hinge on gotchas, though, and it's getting late over here, so I'm out for now.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

/Well yeah, he's an expert, right?

[all swedes are racist]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, but I think this is a touch overcooked. All nonprofits have to do is ensure that they are campaigning on government policy, not against the re-election of Donald Trump. It's not a difficult line to draw.

yep, and frankly that is just good practice and should be standard procedure for pretty much any non profit. "attack the policy, not the person"

[Kalbear]

Just now, Squab said:

If (or when) Jeff Sessions decides the DOJ is not to defend something he doesn't agree with, I will be shocked if you defend him, as the principle doesn't seem to matter to you, just the side.

Sorry, I think you mistook me for you.

Note also that I didn't say that I was cool with it because Yates didn't agree with it; I understand in your polarized universe that is literally the only way you can possibly frame any arguments, because there are no actual principles that you might care about. No, I said that if a person believes that a law or action is illegal that they should not comply with it. That is a slightly different case than it being something that they personally agree or disagree with. 

For example, I can see Sessions refusing to defend a challenge against abortion rights. It would be a weird challenge - because it would mean someone was suing the government to block someone else's abortion rights, which isn't usually how it's framed - but I can see Sessions doing it. And in that case, him doing it because he disagreed with things would be wrong, because he isn't doing his job and isn't doing it based on the belief that the established, 50 year law is illegal. More likely I could see him refusing to defend a hit against voter rights, and I'd be upset for the same reason - again, because he's not doing something in response to a new law, but to defend an old, established one. 

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if they get angrier and more numerous and go after people who didn't harm them, what good is that? 

This is really the #1 problem I have with your ideology and using correlation to imply your worldview - that you believe that the harm is being caused by these elites and globalization, but the people who are getting more numerous and angry don't think that in the slightest. They aren't rallying against the banks or the institutions - they're rallying against the government to the benefit of those private groups. They're far more likely to blame Iranian immigrants than they are Goldman Sachs. So yeah, they're angry - and right now that anger is entirely devoid from the sources that you think they should be targeted at. 

Why would you think that is going to change?

It's not good at all, but it will happen nonetheless. In fact, I suspect if they get angry enough, they will go after the banks too, but the elites have the means to escape them only a few unlucky or unwary ones will suffer with the majority of those targeted being people who do not deserve it. I would really rather not be around when they get angry enough to act which is why I find opposition to the efforts aimed at pacifying them counterproductive.

[Savannah]

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Or you can't express yourself in a way that can be understood. Two can play that game, you know. I admit I prefer a conversation that doesn't hinge on gotchas, though, and it's getting late over here, so I'm out for now.

I prefer a conversation with people that don't make up stuff about my posts. 

How many times did I write that the ground belongs to Germany on this thread? 

Maybe 5 times only to have someone jump at me and claim that I wrote the perfect opposite. 

And after they have the gall to say that I wasn't clear, I spelled it out for you, for 5 times. 

You should apologize. 

[Squab]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, I think you mistook me for you.

Note also that I didn't say that I was cool with it because Yates didn't agree with it; I understand in your polarized universe that is literally the only way you can possibly frame any arguments, because there are no actual principles that you might care about. No, I said that if a person believes that a law or action is illegal that they should not comply with it. That is a slightly different case than it being something that they personally agree or disagree with. 

For example, I can see Sessions refusing to defend a challenge against abortion rights. It would be a weird challenge - because it would mean someone was suing the government to block someone else's abortion rights, which isn't usually how it's framed - but I can see Sessions doing it. And in that case, him doing it because he disagreed with things would be wrong, because he isn't doing his job and isn't doing it based on the belief that the established, 50 year law is illegal. More likely I could see him refusing to defend a hit against voter rights, and I'd be upset for the same reason - again, because he's not doing something in response to a new law, but to defend an old, established one. 

So you think its ok if he believes its illegal. ok. again, side rather than principle.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

It's not good at all, but it will happen nonetheless. In fact, I suspect if they get angry enough, they will go after the banks too, but the elites have the means to escape them only a few unlucky or unwary ones will suffer with the majority of those targeted being people who do not deserve it. I would really rather not be around when they get angry enough to act which is why I find opposition to the efforts aimed at pacifying them counterproductive.

Okay,  but now you're claiming that there are actual efforts to pacify them, which doesn't appear to be the case - or worse yet, they're trying to pacify them by blaming them on ethnic minorities and immigrants. You're saying that you'd rather blame people that are innocent as long as it pacifies the angry people?

[The guy from the Vale]

No, I will not apologize. You keep saying that Ramstein never was German, which is so obviously false it just boggles the mind. Your equivocations don't change that fact. Like, at all.

More to the point, I'm out for good. No need to get into fights with obvious gaslighters. Have fun continuing talking to yourself about places that both never were German as well as being inside Germany while still making sense to yourself and yourself only.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Squab said:

So you think its ok if he believes its illegal. ok. again, side rather than principle.

How is that side rather than principle? That is literally the opposite. Unless you think that 'legal' and 'illegal' are the two sides here.

[Squab]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

How is that side rather than principle? That is literally the opposite. Unless you think that 'legal' and 'illegal' are the two sides here.

if Jeff sessions doesn't defend something he truly believes is illegal, you are ok with that? I would hope not. but if Sally Yates does it, its ok.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Squab said:

if Jeff sessions doesn't defend something he truly believes is illegal, you are ok with that? I would hope not. but if Sally Yates does it, its ok.

If Jeff Sessions doesn't defend something that he truly believes is illegal, I think that (outside of any other context) that's great. That is the absolute duty of every single civil servant that is serving. Now, they can be fired for it, but that's about as high of a principle as I can hope for. 

And Sally Yates doing it as acting DoJ head is pretty impressive too.

[Commodore]

this is unacceptable, fire her ass immediately

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.0323363d8f02

Quote

 

A few quick observations. First, the statement seems to indicate that the executive order was reviewed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which apparently concluded that the executive order was lawful. Second, Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not “wise or just.” This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.

Yates is supposed to remain the acting attorney general until Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is confirmed. The question now is whether she will remain in office that long.

 

 

[Savannah]

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

No, I will not apologize. You keep saying that Ramstein never was German, which is so obviously false it just boggles the mind. Your equivocations don't change that fact. Like, at all.

More to the point, I'm out for good. No need to get into fights with obvious gaslighters. Have fun continuing talking to yourself about places that both never were German as well as being inside Germany while still making sense to yourself and yourself only.

You do realize that if I bring gold and diamonds to Germany with me  and craft a tennis bracelet the bracelet belongs to me and not to germany, right? 

Wikipedia

"From 2004 to 2006, Ramstein Air Base underwent an extensive expansion with a major construction project – including an all-new airport terminal, among other new facilities, through the so-called Rhein-Main Transition Program which was initiated in support of the total closure of Rhein-Main Air Base on 30 December 2005 and transferring all its former capacities to Ramstein Air Base (70%) and Spangdahlem Air Base (30%).

While the KMC remains the largest U.S. community overseas at 53,000 people, the defense drawdown continues to shape its future. Due to the departure of other main operating installations, more than 100 geographically separated units receive support from Ramstein.

Ramstein Air Base also served as temporary housing for the United States men's national soccer team during the 2006 World Cup.[citation needed]

There is often a Summer Camp to Ramstein from British CCF (RAF) and ATC cadets.

HistoryEdit

The construction of the air base was a project designed and undertaken by the French Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1949 to 1952. It was an example of international collaboration: designed by French engineers, constructed by some Germans but with imported help from workers of Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Turkey (there were very few German men to work on construction projects after World War II) and operated by Americans.

The area was a swamp that had to be built up by two meters (six feet). A train line was laid out from Einsiedlerhof-Kaiserslautern in a yoke shape around to the current base and back down to the Landstuhl spur in 1948 by agreement of the U.S. and French Occupational Forces. Trainloads of earth were moved over the line and spread over the base's current area to raise it to its current level. Once the ground was level, building construction began. Two bases were laid out. Landstuhl Air Base on the south side and Ramstein Air Station (station, no airstrip) on the north. From 1948 to the opening of the bases in 1953 it was the largest one spot construction site in Europe employing over 270,000 Europeans at one time.[citation needed]"

[TrueMetis]

The Department of Justice has never refused to defend an executive action because it wasn't just.

Might want to change the name then.

[Commodore]

3 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

The Department of Justice has never refused to defend an executive action because it wasn't just.

Might want to change the name then.

Her own department said it was a legal order, and she didn't claim otherwise.

If she won't defend it, she's not doing her job and needs to resign.