U.S. Politics - a conservative, a conservative, my kingdom for a conservative

[awesome possum]

For me, this is no different than Mitt deciding we should still require coverage of pre-existing conditions. It just dodges the hard question.

Who decides when you "joined" the group and whether your joining was "purposeful?"

You do, by joining the group in the first place. As for purposeful, do you really think there are many... or any Americans who find themselves in the circumstances of, "Ooops, I just accidentally joined Al Qaeda!"

You seem to not even think "residing abroad" is a requirement. Can we missile strike people on US soil then, too?

How do you even infer that from my comments? Sounds kind of like you're making up arguments to argue against.

Who decides what is a "group dedicated to killing US citizens" and whether the "group" the citizen "joins" is part of that group or not?

Um, maybe the group decides when they explicitly state that, among their goals, is killing US citizens/overthrowing the United States.

I think publishing a rule stating when we can do this and when we can't and a trial in absentia with the evidence against him made public, or something similar, was minimally required.

You don't forfeit your life on the basis of one sentence of justification from the executive. Nothing else. That's not a good rule. Why is this not something that is immediately apparent to everyone?

I agree that the law for this sort of thing needs to be more explicit, but I don't agree that the basis is "one sentence of justification from the executive."

Forfeit is to lose or be deprived of something for wrongdoing. The wrongdoing in this case is treason. Treason is punishable by death.

[Fez]

So you guys are deeply concerned about Mitt Romney's facial expression over the death of one guy, but you don't care if Obama illegally kills people as long as it's only one guy?

Completely unrelated issues. Obama ordered the killings of enemies of the United States of America (what do I care were they were born), Romney was gleeful at the chance to use the deaths of government employees to attack Obama politically.

And even if you oppose Obama's targeted strikes, what does that have to do with Romney's reaction to what happened last night? They're as unrelated issues as if you compared to it Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

[IheartTesla]

Mr. Romney appears to have been a bit hasty with his politicization of this tragedy.

[Guest Raidne]

Kal - So...you've never voted? Are there are people who don't disagree with you about anything you're 100% against? The latter is what I would be jealous of - this has never been true for me.

[Guest Raidne]

Fez, one is so much worse they are hard to compare, yes. Better to look at them together: The idea of what Romney would do with that precedent set is chilling.

[Kalbear]

So...you've never voted? Are there are people who don't disagree with you about anything you're 100% against? The latter is what I would be jealous of - this has never been true for me.

I've voted many times. And sometimes it's turned out badly. I will say this - I've often not voted for people for a second term based on their performance in the first term.

How about you, Raidne - are you perfectly accepting of the notions that your votes are implicit acceptance of things you are completely morally against? Or do you simply not have anything you care about to such a degree that it would violate your moral standards?

[Kalbear]

Forfeit is to lose or be deprived of something for wrongdoing. The wrongdoing in this case is treason. Treason is punishable by death.

Treason is also something that must be accused, tried and found guilty in a court of law.

[Sci-2]

So you guys are deeply concerned about Mitt Romney's facial expression over the death of one guy, but you don't care if Obama illegally kills people as long as it's only one guy?

Actually I have a problem with that as well.

[Guest Raidne]

Kal I answered that in my very first response to you already.

[sologdin]

So you guys are deeply concerned about Mitt Romney's facial expression

they make us love! we are like children!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Kalbear is absolutely correct on this point. Not only is Treason defined in the Constitution the manner in which somone must be tried after being accused of Treason is defined in the Constitution. By no action, other than admiting guilt in open Court, can someone surrender their rights to due process under the Constitution.

[Ser Greguh]

Fez, one is so much worse they are hard to compare, yes. Better to look at them together: The idea of what Romney would do with that precedent set is chilling.

You mean the precedent of us killing people or the precedent of you knowing about it?

[Kalbear]

Actually you didn't; you said that you can't be a pragmatist about everything, but you didn't state that you weren't. And your example (innocent killing of civilians) was an example of something you could be pragmatic about.

Which makes me believe that simply there's nothing that you would be 100% against no matter what. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, if you like. Just own it and move on.

Personally, I've been in a position where no candidate could satisfy my moral standard on something, and so I abstained from voting for either - because I believe that if you do vote for people when you disagree with them on these positions you absolutely validate them. You enable them to take that vote regardless of whatever abhorrent position they hold. That's not acceptable to me. That is probably fine for a large number of people, but for me at least it's very difficult to reconcile (for example) the notion that you can have a stronger economy and you're willing to accept just a little bit of gang rape to get there.

[Sci-2]

You enable them to take that vote regardless of whatever abhorrent position they hold.

I think the challenge, to me anyway, is the question of who suffers if the "wrong side" wins. You, or someone else?

I can't think of a single time I've voted for someone who I 100% agreed with, and most of the time at least one of their positions was something I had strong reservations about. But IMO if Republicans win control of government people who don't have my privileges will be hurt.

[awesome possum]

AP,

Kalbear is absolutely correct on this point. Not only is Treason defined in the Constitution the manner in which somone must be tried after being accused of Treason is defined in the Constitution. By no action, other than admiting guilt in open Court, can someone surrender their rights to due process under the Constitution.

What is the solution, then? Trial absentia as Raidne mentioned?

How would we go about this without it ending up a farce?

[Shryke]

Fez, one is so much worse they are hard to compare, yes. Better to look at them together: The idea of what Romney would do with that precedent set is chilling.

Why? The two stories have nothing to do with one another. You just seemed to want to tie them together to make yet another comment about bias and sloppiness.

If you want to talk about the smirk, you are not talking about the legality of killing american citizens with drone strikes, you are talking about the nature of Mitt's character and what that would mean for his potential presidency on a whole host of issues.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm confused. Kal asks:

How about you, Raidne - are you perfectly accepting of the notions that your votes are implicit acceptance of things you are completely morally against? Or do you simply not have anything you care about to such a degree that it would violate your moral standards?

I thought I answered that when I said:

"Nevertheless, even though some day 100 years from now it is entirely possible that we will look back and say that this was the Presidency began the process of eroding the core rights of citizens of the Republic on the road to despotism, I will still vote for Obama. I don't think the United States economy could withstand another round of, as Bones said, take two tax cuts and call me in the morning. It's a moral dilemma to be sure, but immediate, present, known, very serious economic harm outweighs more distant, unknown, possible catastrophic abrogation of the rights of American citizens for me."

Kal answers:

Actually you didn't; you said that you can't be a pragmatist about everything, but you didn't state that you weren't. And your example (innocent killing of civilians) was an example of something you could be pragmatic about.

I have to cut in here and say that I gave that as an example of something I am NOT pragmatic about - that may be the source of the confusion?

Which makes me believe that simply there's nothing that you would be 100% against no matter what. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, if you like. Just own it and move on.

No, like I said, I am 100% against the ordered killing of American citizens without due process of law.

Personally, I've been in a position where no candidate could satisfy my moral standard on something, and so I abstained from voting for either - because I believe that if you do vote for people when you disagree with them on these positions you absolutely validate them. You enable them to take that vote regardless of whatever abhorrent position they hold. That's not acceptable to me. That is probably fine for a large number of people, but for me at least it's very difficult to reconcile (for example) the notion that you can have a stronger economy and you're willing to accept just a little bit of gang rape to get there.

To me what I said is that I accept that my votes require implicit acceptance of things I am against, even very, very against, when weighed on balance with all the other things I care deeply about based on my assessment of the importance of the issue, the likelihood of the harm, and, to some degree, the immediacy of that harm.

This is the case with a lot of things - freedom of speech can interfere with property rights, religious freedom can interfere with equal rights, etc. You weigh, you balance, you try to draw general rules, and in the end you take what you want and you pay for it.

So, if 100 years from now the degrading of our civil rights is pinpointed to have started with the Obama adminsitration, I, along with everyone who voted for him, will own up to that. I don't think McCain would have acted differently, but I don't know and a counterfactual is not the kind of argument that settles anything. I'll explain this in more detail if you like, but you're going to have to ask more specific questions because I don't know what I haven't already said. This is regular dinner conversation at my house, I can talk about it ad nauseum so ask away.

I also am really unconvinced that you 100% agree with anyone you've ever voted for. Example? I'm sure you can give one. How about someone other than Obama, assuming you've voted in other elections?

[Fez]

Fez, one is so much worse they are hard to compare, yes. Better to look at them together: The idea of what Romney would do with that precedent set is chilling.

There's lots of things Romney could do as president that would be chilling, that doesn't mean I don't want them to be powers that the president has; just that I don't want Romney to become president.

[Guest Raidne]

Why? The two stories have nothing to do with one another. You just seemed to want to tie them together to make yet another comment about bias and sloppiness.

Er, no, not really.

If you want to talk about the smirk, you are not talking about the legality of killing american citizens with drone strikes, you are talking about the nature of Mitt's character and what that would mean for his potential presidency on a whole host of issues.

The implication with the smirk is that Mitt does not emotionally feel American deaths on a very deep level. The idea of someone who doesn't really care about the deaths of Americans having the authority to order the deaths of Americans is chilling.

ETA: Fez, you have been as consistently in favor of the expansion of the authority of the executive, on all issues related to that topic that I can think of, as Alito and so your position on this subject makes perfect sense to me. You are in favor of every expansion of federal power in American history, no? War Powers Act, Patriot Act, warrantless wire-tapping, the Utah data center, etc., etc., right?

[Kalbear]

I have to cut in here and say that I gave that as an example of something I am NOT pragmatic about - that may be the source of the confusion?

The confusion is that you're not pragmatic about it (so you say) but your actions belie that; you state you'll be voting for Obama anyway. That means you are either pragmatic about it or that it is something that you are not so against that you don't mind supporting it on some level.

No, like I said, I am 100% against the ordered killing of American citizens without due process of law.

You can't be if you're voting for Obama.

To me what I said is that I accept that my votes require implicit acceptance of things I am against, even very, very against, when weighed on balance with all the other things I care deeply about based on my assessment of the importance of the issue, the likelihood of the harm, and, to some degree, the immediacy of that harm.

That would be pragmatism in a nutshell.

I also am really unconvinced that you 100% agree with anyone you've ever voted for. Example? I'm sure you can give one. How about someone other than Obama, assuming you've voted in other elections?

I didn't say that I 100% agree with everyone I've ever voted for. I said that I have not voted for someone who supported something I was 100% against. The most explicit example I can think of was Clinton after his actions in support of Somalia and Serbia, but I've changed a bit since that time.