U.S. Politics - the end of summer edition

[DanteGabriel]

So striking Syria for for actual use of real WMD on civilians could be a worse error by the president than launching an invasion of Iraq for potential future use of imaginary WMD.

Why is the first an impeacable offense while the second is not?

Is the difference that Obama (may) decide to act without asking congress for approval? That seems like the only logical explanation.

Only Democrats get impeached.

[awesome possum]

This... is... bullshit

In November 2008, Woods, 48, who was the head of Mainstreet Bank and the bank's holding company Calvert Financial Corporation, applied for TARP money on behalf of his bank, a press release states.

In January 2009, his bank received $1,037,000. A month later, he used $381,487 of it to buy a place in Fort Myers, Florida.

He pleaded guilty to misleading federal investigators about how he used the TARP money.

Woods is no longer allowed to work in the banking industry, according to the release. He also faces a sentence of up to one year in federal prison without parole and a fine of up to $100,000 plus restitution.

This guy gets what amounts to a slap on the wrist for essentially stealing almost $400,000 from the federal government.

Heads. On. Fucking. Spikes.

[thecryptile]

Only Democrats get impeached.

It's true- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only US presidents to be impeached. But Nixon came very close...

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think they are rather more scared of chemical warfare being used.

And the US intervention will do what for that exactly?

Now I eagerly await to hear how Peter King is really just a RINO

Peter King supports terrorists.

More likely it's the logic of warnings.

He's trying to steer the Syrians (both sides) into acting in a way he likes without actually deploying force, so he gives out warnings, etc. Only that means if they do cross the lines he's drawn up he is more or less obligated to use force or lose even more credibility.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

My point exactly. He'd rather kill people than look like his warnings have no teeth. People get to pay with their lives for his big talk. It's monstrous.

[Galactus]

My point exactly. He'd rather kill people than look like his warnings have no teeth. People get to pay with their lives for his big talk. It's monstrous.

It's not that simple, if he shows that he means business he might not have to kill people (or at least not as many) the next time.

There is a calculus to international politics, and it's not pretty, but it's not simply about pride either, but just as much about sending a message about what is tolerable and what kind of consequences acting outside of the norms will have.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's not that simple, if he shows that he means business he might not have to kill people (or at least not as many) the next time.

There is a calculus to international politics, and it's not pretty, but it's not simply about pride either, but just as much about sending a message about what is tolerable and what kind of consequences acting outside of the norms will have.

Acting outside the norms like locking female children inside a burning school because it's better to burn to death than have a man see your face? Our best buddies do that. Acting outside the norms like using sarin gas on Kurds and Iranians, because we fucking helped with that.

And I see that we're giving a handwave here to the fact that the situation is all of Obama's making. He's the one who has been making threats and drawing red lines. Now you're saying that he has to follow them up or the theoretical conflict in the future will be theoretically worse. I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the widows and orphans of American rockets in Syria, that their sacrifice has hopefully saved a couple lives in some other hellhole 10 years from now when the next president feels like showing the world his dick.

[Galactus]

Acting outside the norms like locking female children inside a burning school because it's better to burn to death than have a man see your face? Our best buddies do that. Acting outside the norms like using sarin gas on Kurds and Iranians, because we fucking helped with that.

So? Using chemical weapons is generally seen as not OK. (it's a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, for starters) it's definitely something that should have consequences (what would be approporiate sanctions I don't know, I suspect part of the problem is that there isn't much Obama can do short of active military intervention at this point, all the other sanctions have already been used)

I guess he might somehow negotiate a deal with the russians and chinese to stop their support in exchange for not intervening directly, but it seems unlikely.

And I see that we're giving a handwave here to the fact that the situation is all of Obama's making.

Of course it isn't. Assad (assuming it is him or his underlings who used these weapons) didn't have to cross that line. They chose to, knowing that their action would have consequences. (again, assuming they did it, there's still the possibility something else happened)

[lokisnow]

we're invading Syria because the Sequester is hurting the defense companies; they want some browns to fucking kill or something to blow up because that means more/better orders from the government. Attacking Syria is worth BILLIONS to the companies in question.

***

Amazing article in Slate about Ginsburg and Scalia:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/ginsburg_and_scalia_s_supreme_court_complaints_do_they_agree_about_what.html

But what’s most striking in their comments is how far the court has moved from both of them. Scalia and Ginsburg are arguably the intellectual leaders of the right and left wings of the current court. And each of them is persuaded that the court is absolutely headed in the wrong direction.

It’s tempting to suggest, then, based on the recent comments of the two, that it’s a wash. If the court’s radical liberal bomb-thrower and equally radical conservative firebrand are equally frustrated, maybe the Roberts court is tacking precisely down the middle. That assessment would be precisely wrong. But it is worth a quick comparison of their complaints.

So while Scalia despairs of judges’ capacity to solve inchoate moral dilemmas, Ginsburg despairs of their capacity to understand how the real world operates. Scalia wants judges to stop trying to fix things. Ginsburg wants judges to stop stopping the rest of us from fixing things. In a way, they mirror each other perfectly. Over and above all that, Ginsburg worries that when the courts make a mess of things in the real world, Congress as it now exists lacks the institutional ability to fix it. Scalia is more complicated. He says he would defer to legislative bodies on most things (if gays want to pass a law, they should just do it!) but then rather consistently finds reasons to second-guess Congress whenever it actually does legislate. In other words, he is always apt to defer to the bill that didn’t happen, but ready to strike down a bill (like the Affordable Care Act, or the VRA) that did.

Which brings us to how real their respective fears really are. In spring Nathaniel Frank suggested that Scalia’s arguments about moral opprobrium and approval in the law have been disproved by time, and also overtaken by history. Whereas Ginsburg’s prediction in the Voting Rights Act dissent–that the assumption that the law works and is thus no longer needed “is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet”—has proven prescient, as Richard Hasen recently noted. The speed with which states like Texas and North Carolina sprinted to make voting more difficult in the weeks after the decision suggests that Ginsburg was correct in her assessment: The court badly misread the status quo.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So? Using chemical weapons is generally seen as not OK. (it's a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, for starters) it's definitely something that should have consequences (what would be approporiate sanctions I don't know, I suspect part of the problem is that there isn't much Obama can do short of active military intervention at this point, all the other sanctions have already been used)

I guess he might somehow negotiate a deal with the russians and chinese to stop their support in exchange for not intervening directly, but it seems unlikely.

Great. Let Sweden take care of it if people there think it absolutely needs to be taken care of. Or Italy. Or India. Or fucking Iran for all I give a shit. Or whoever it is that thinks its so goddam important that punishment be meted out to the transgressors. It's got jack shit to do with the US. Our involvement absolutely will not help anyone involved. Not us, not the Syrians, not the Turks or the Israelis or the Egyptians. All it will do is cost money and lives and political capital that we do not have to spare.

[Galactus]

Or whoever it is that thinks its so goddam important that punishment be meted out to the transgressors.

That would be the US government.

EDIT: You seem to be under the impression that some nefarious foreign agenda is strong-arming the US government into doing something it doesen't want to do. This is not the case. The US has a vested interest of it's word being considered trustworthy.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

That would be the US government.

Just the president really, there doesn't seem to be a muslim country he isn't keen on blowing up. There's a reason he hasn't come to congress on this.

[Galactus]

Just the president really, there doesn't seem to be a muslim country he isn't keen on blowing up. There's a reason he hasn't come to congress on this.

You think the president makes these kinds of decisions alone? He's almost certainly assisted by a huge group of advisors, know-it-alls, intelligence personnell, diplomats, his secretary of state, etc. (and I suspect many of these institutions persists between administrations, which is why US foreign policy remains relatively consistent no matter who is in charge)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Just the president really, there doesn't seem to be a muslim country he isn't keen on blowing up. There's a reason he hasn't come to congress on this.

EDIT: You seem to be under the impression that some nefarious foreign agenda is strong-arming the US government into doing something it doesen't want to do. This is not the case. The US has a vested interest of it's word being considered trustworthy.

No, I think that the president is doing this because he doesn't want to look like a pussy. He talked the big talk and now he's ready to send people to kill and die rather than walk that back.

I don't think that there is anyone in the world under the impression that the US won't send someone to kill you with missiles whenever they feel like it.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Galactus - do you believe the government of Sweden should send warships, planes, and troops to Syria? Why or why not?

[Galactus]

Galactus - do you believe the government of Sweden should send warships, planes, and troops to Syria? Why or why not?

If there is a UN resolution in favour? Yes, it would be part of the obligations we've signed up for.

Although I think you're confused: I'm not really in favour of an invasion of Syria by the US either. (and I'd like to avoid even airstrikes) but I'm just trying to explain the motives and actions of the US government. They have understandable and decent reasons for acting the way they do, even if I disagree with the outcome. (I do think something needs to be done, preferably something that doesen't involve war, like trying to broker a peace agreement of some kind, possibly with along with the other regional powers, but it is doubtful)

This is all assuming that the chemical weapons attack can actually be tied to Assad (and that he doesen't behead a few generals as an apology)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If there is a UN resolution in favour? Yes, it would be part of the obligations we've signed up for.

There isn't going to be one. Do you support going in anyway?

Although I think you're confused: I'm not really in favour of an invasion of Syria by the US either. (and I'd like to avoid even airstrikes) but I'm just trying to explain the motives and actions of the US government. They have understandable and decent reasons for acting the way they do, even if I disagree with the outcome. (I do think something needs to be done, preferably something that doesen't involve war, like trying to broker a peace agreement of some kind, possibly with along with the other regional powers, but it is doubtful)

Understandable? Sure, I guess. Decent? Absolutely not.

Basically the whole logic now is that "we" threatened them, and now if we don't back up the threats...something will happen. Apparently Russia will nuke Paris or something. It's a terrible, awful, and shitty reason. No one in this country except the President's cabal wants this.

[Galactus]

Basically the whole logic now is that "we" threatened them, and now if we don't back up the threats...something will happen.

This has been the mainstay of US politics since Teddy Roosevelt.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This has been the mainstay of US politics since Teddy Roosevelt.

A racist imperialist asshole who had a giant boner for war until his kid got killed in one. Not the best role model. US politics are incorrect and stupid in this regard.

[Galactus]

A racist imperialist asshole who had a giant boner for war until his kid got killed in one. Not the best role model. US politics are incorrect and stupid in this regard.

Yup. The problem is that you're riding a tiger: It's tricky getting off.

[DanteGabriel]

Tormund, I have a gift for you from the Neocons at the Weekly Standard.

Guess what their stance is?

Nothing could go farther to convince me that it's a bad idea to get involved in Syria.