U.S. Politics

[Paladin of Ice]

Great idea. How about you let them own your house too.

:rofl:

It's always amusing when someone skips the slippery slope argument altogether and go straight to the illogical extreme conclusion.

But to respond with some substance: you argument doesn't make sense. Tons of countries have nationalized or partially nationalized industries (oil, electricity, air travel, etc.) without having outlawed things like private property, individual rights, etc. Some probably have a record on those subjects, what with the lack of Gitmo and all.

[TrackerNeil]

So, to be clear, are you saying that the GOP factions who line up behind the likes of Boehner and Ryan are politically stupid to be deceived by fanciful rhetorics, or are you saying that they lack the political acuity to discern facile re-packaging to take advantage of political fads?

Umm...can I say both are true?

On other news, there is a really neat poll about the ACA here. As you can see, there's alot of ignorance about just what the law does - unsurprising, to my mind - and that ignorance has an interesting aspect:

Some of the law’s most popular elements are those which smaller shares of the public recognize as being included, suggesting that increased familiarity with these provisions could potentially boost support for the law overall. For example, about four in ten are unaware that the law requires health plans to produce straightforward benefits summaries, though this was the most popular provision overall, viewed very favorably by six in ten Americans. And the least well‐known provisions, eliminating cost‐sharing for preventive services and the medical loss ratio requirement, are each favored by at least six in ten, including a third who see each as “very” favorable.

[DanteGabriel]

:rofl:

It's always amusing when someone skips the slippery slope argument altogether and go straight to the illogical extreme conclusion.

But to respond with some substance: you argument doesn't make sense. Tons of countries have nationalized or partially nationalized industries (oil, electricity, air travel, etc.) without having outlawed things like private property, individual rights, etc. Some probably have a record on those subjects, what with the lack of Gitmo and all.

I believe that this is covered by the "America is a unique and special snowflake so things that work well in other wealthy Western nations won't work here" argument. Which is probably true, because this nation sure does seem to have more Free Market-worshipping, reality-divorced, theory-thumping libertarians than those other countries.

[Crazydog7]

So I'm surprised no one has mentioned Senate Bill 1867 which essentially authorizes the President to be able to indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen who is suspected to have given support to "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces".

Goodbye rule of law.

Rule of law has never been tremendously important in American politics/war/foreign policy. When the Elite want to do something they find a way the cool thing is that since 9/11 they don't even bother to hide it anymore. The fact that we all at one time look for a lost "golden age" where your vote counted and your representatives were easily accessible speaks volumes about indoctrination in the Public Schools,

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So I'm surprised no one has mentioned Senate Bill 1867 which essentially authorizes the President to be able to indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen who is suspected to have given support to "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces".

Goodbye rule of law.

The link doesn't work.

That's important, because from what I've read, the bill states that it does NOT apply to U.S. Citizens. If you've seen something different, fine. It also expressly states that none of its provisions shall be construed so as to violate the Constitution. So based on the Hamdi case, even if you didn't have an exception for U.S. citizens, any American citizen detained would have the right to challenge his detention in court, and the folks who drafted the bill obviously were aware of that.

What the bill really seems to be about is what you do with people captured in this country who have openly sided with the enemy. Can they only be prosecuted criminally, or, if they are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be enemy combatants, can they be held for the duration of hostilities as is traditionally done with POW's.

I could see people disagreeing on that, but we should be clear about what the bill is, and what it is not.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

The bill states that detainment is not required for US Citizens and Legal Residents, but not that they're exempt. http://thomas.loc.go...12:S.1867.PCS:/ Look for "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters" under Title X. A proposed amendment to limit this to apply to individuals captured abroad failed, too. partial quote:

EDITED because auto-formatting sucks, and the full editor is apparently unusable.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

• 
  (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
• 
  
  • (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    
  • (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
    
    • (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
      
    • (B ) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
      

    [*](3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(C ), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

    [*](4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

  (B ) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

  • (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    
  • (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
    

[TrackerNeil]

Greewald was all over this one. I'm with Ron Paul on this. You can give up way too much freedom in the name of security.

What's really bizarre about this is the way some think that requiring citizens to purchase insurance is the Death of Freedom but tossing a citizen in a hole indefinitely, without access to attorneys or even a trial, is jim-dandy. Sort of like how these same folks went bananas over an imaginary death panel in the ACA when there is a real death panel that actually recommends to the president who should die. I don't get it.

[Shryke]

Rule of law has never been tremendously important in American politics/war/foreign policy. When the Elite want to do something they find a way the cool thing is that since 9/11 they don't even bother to hide it anymore. The fact that we all at one time look for a lost "golden age" where your vote counted and your representatives were easily accessible speaks volumes about indoctrination in the Public Schools,

The Elite? Please. The American people are more then willing to give up their freedom for security on their own.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The bill states that detainment is not required for US Citizens and Legal Residents, but not that they're exempt. http://thomas.loc.go...12:S.1867.PCS:/ Look for "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters" under Title X. A proposed amendment to limit this to apply to individuals captured abroad failed, too. partial quote:

Okay. Still, you've got the Hamdi protections there, so this law doesn't give the President authority to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely absent a legal finding that they were acting as belligerants.

Even so, I'm not so sure about this. I mean, I understand and generally agree with the POV that you can hold captured combatants in a war for as long as hostilities are ongoing. And if that is for 100 years due to the nature of that conflict, too fucking bad. And I can even see why this should apply to U.S. citizens captured abroad who are acting as belligerants. If you're basically fighting on the side of an opposing army, you shouldn't be shielded by your U.S. citizenship.

On the other hand, this applies to Americans cooperating with Al Qaeda here in the U.S., and that seems extreme to me. Why not just amend the criminal law of conspiracy, and add much higher penalties for anyone engaged in these kind of acts while working with a hostile power? I'd rather see the higher burden of proof required for criminal offenses if we're going to be imprisoning U.S. citizens for that long.

[Shryke]

Gingrich surging:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to the largest national lead held by any candidate so far in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Gingrich on top with 38% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a distant second at 17%. No other candidate reaches double-digits.

http://www.rasmussen...dential_primary

Of course, you know, Rasmussen....

I like this little graph as a good way of demonstrating Romney's problem: http://images2.daily...omneys_550w.png

[TrackerNeil]

Even so, I'm not so sure about this. I mean, I understand and generally agree with the POV that you can hold captured combatants in a war for as long as hostilities are ongoing. And if that is for 100 years due to the nature of that conflict, too fucking bad. And I can even see why this should apply to U.S. citizens captured abroad who are acting as belligerants. If you're basically fighting on the side of an opposing army, you shouldn't be shielded by your U.S. citizenship.

I wonder what happens to those citizens picked up and charged in error? Is it too fucking bad that they rot forever in Guantanemo Bay? Or do they get a hearing after the third decade?

Also, why the hell shouldn't citizenship shield you from your own government? My gosh...isn't restrained government what you conservatives are all about? Criminy.

[TrackerNeil]

If Newt Gingrich wins the primary I may disavow my atheism.

[Jaxom 1974]

If Newt Gingrich wins the primary I may disavow my atheism.

Well then... :P

I know for a certainty that if the Republicans were to offer Newt as their candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election, it would pretty much ensure i won't even have to think twice about my vote. There isn't a chance in the world that they're getting it.

[Shryke]

I think that's basically an indication that a lot of those voters are like "I won't vote for Mitt unless I really have to." I think the general election is very likely an "if I have to" scenario. But does the "if I have to" come before the nomination is decided? I'm not sure it does.

Here's the thing though. The creature that is the Newt has a fuckton of baggage in the personal sense and the political sense. He trumps the clown show members by being much more articulate (though still a bit of a faux-intellectual in my opinion) and seeming like a much more "serious" candidate, but he also has a lot of political flip flops. That's tough to get over, but he at least seems to be able to capture the animosity to Obama that Romney can't quite get. I agree with something that Sullivan said today. This Newt surge along with Romney's troubles feel real in a way that the surges of the clowns did not. I am not ready to declare certainty that no one else can get in or that Newt is the nominee, but it feels much more likely than anyone else did.

It's not as simple as "If I have to". Cause the answer to that is "no, I don't. I can just stay home".

Mitt Romney is Kerry without the charisma. Kerry being not-Bush wasn't enough and I doubt being not-obama will be either.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, he means Mitt Romney has even less charisma than Kerry.

[Shryke]

Latest poll I saw said like 40% of people said they wouldn't vote for a mormon.

And Kerry has charisma compared to Romney.

[Shryke]

Also, the Germans show the US media how this whole "not sucking" thing works:

The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.

It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.

And so the farce continues. The more mind-boggling its incarnations, the happier the US media are to cheer first one clown and then the next, elevating and then eliminating "frontrunners" in reliable news cycles of about 45 days.

So the US elections are a reality show after all, a pseudo-political counterpart to the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and all the "American Idol" and "X Factor" contestants littering today's TV. The cruder, the dumber, the more bizarre and outlandish -- the more lucrative. Especially for Fox News, whose viewers were recently determined by Fairleigh Dickinson University to be far less informed than people who don't watch TV news at all.

Maybe that's the solution: Just ignore it all, until election day. Good luck with that -- this docudrama with its soap-opera twists is way too enthralling. The latest rumor du jour involves a certain candidate who long ago seemed to have disappeared from the radar. Now she may be back, or so it is said, to bring order into this chaos. Never mind that her name is synonymous with chaos: Sarah Palin.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800850,00.html

[Shryke]

Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums. Democrats said that this part of the Republican proposal was not serious, pointing out that high earners were already ineligible to receive food stamps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

/facepalm

[DanteGabriel]

Oh Sweet Fancy Jesus, I am so excited by the idea of Gingrich-Obama debates, I would canvas for the High Bloviator myself.

I suppose that makes me part of the problem Der Spiegel astutely pointed out. I just can't see politics in this country as any more than Kabuki theater with the actors occasionally just tripping over themselves and faceplanting, but its consequences are all too serious.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I wonder what happens to those citizens picked up and charged in error? Is it too fucking bad that they rot forever in Guantanemo Bay? Or do they get a hearing after the third decade?

But that applies to any court action -- courts can screw up, which is why there are people who wrongly spent 30 or more years in prison. But we don't not imprison someone because of the possibility that the justice system may get it wrong.

Also, why the hell shouldn't citizenship shield you from your own government?

Citizenship doesn't shield you from punishment if you commit a crime. Why should it shield you if you've openly sided with an enemy of your country and are trying to kill your fellow citizens?