|
Gozinbulx posted:Yeah I am sincerely appalled by how blase I am about mass shootings now. When that thing happened up there in Canada near parliament or whatever I was surprised by all the memeing and posting about what a tragedy it was and all the celebration of the old man who shot him. It was so minor it didn't even register on my radar. I live in Florida and barely gave a second thought to a shooting at FSU. What a country! This is precisely the sort of reaction They want you to have! 
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Mass shootings aren't terrorism! Unless they make a good political boogeyman! All politics is trolling 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Mass shootings aren't terrorism! Unless a Muslim did it! Fixed a typo for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Fixed a typo for you. I didn't want to say a mean thing about the American voters and political culture. We're smart people with a great system that lets us choose between TWO corrupt bourgeois machinations that are driving society into stagnation and decay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:
Not gonna lie. I had to Google this to get the joke. I thought he was making fun of me for a typo or some poo poo. Plus his avatar always makes me think of Selma from Scooby Doo. But never mind all that. It keeps getting asked, here and in the dedicated immigration executive order thread but, seriously, at some point isn't someone going to have to cite exactly how Obama is violating the constitution? Because I still don't see it. Isn't the President allowed to decide how and in what manner existing laws are enforced and isn't that all he's done? What's the basis for Boehner's lawsuit? At some point an argument's going to have to be presented by someone that says "here's why this is in violation of the constitution" and that moves beyond the hyperbole and the hysterics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Perhaps I'm missing some legal nuances here because honestly I haven't paid close attention to this issue. But given that the executive branch is supposed to be implementing the laws that have been passed by Congress it does seem like selectively choosing to ignore legislation is violating the constitution. Obama himself previously dismissed exactly the policy he is now pursuing as something that was outside the scope of his powers as President. Again, perhaps I'm missing something here and somebody else can fill me in, but if we imagine a Republican president choosing to selectively exempt millions of people from income taxes or a Republican president choosing to selectively ignore civil rights prosecutions then I would assume many people posting in this thread would call that unconstitutional as well. I mean, if it really is constitutional for the executive to take this level of discretion when enforcing the law then the American system is even more broken than I thought. Now all that having been said I'm not necessarily saying that Obama's move is a bad one. Both parties routinely violate the constitution and at least this particular policy will make a lot of people's lives better. But this is not the way the President of a functional constitutional system should be behaving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
I'm also no law-talking-guy, so I can't say with certainty whether this is actually Constitutional or not, but I think the difference is that this is stemming from the President's authority to direct agencies on the basis of their limited resources, rather than making sweeping changes to the law as such. Now, in your other two examples, I don't know the tax code so I couldn't say, but with the second one I presume it would be different because the law has been firmly decided in the courts - I don't know about any precedents for Obama's steps here, so perhaps that is indeed settled (one way or the other), but absent such a legal declaration I think this is somewhat apart from a direct contradiction of existing legal rulings. Overall I'm reasonably confident the executive really does have this degree of discretion with the law, because it's a question of how to enforce an existing law using powers prescribed to him. That said this is certainly exceptional, and normally a President wouldn't do anything this drastic because they'd never pass a bill through Congress again, but Obama knows drat well he's getting nothing done with Congress for the next two years anyway, so it's not much of a stick to beat him with. Had the Republicans worked with the Democrats on reasonable immigration reform, it would never have come to this, of course  It may be against the spirit of the Constitution, I accept, but then again the situation of over ten million immigrants is against the spirit of American ideals (in theory, if not in actuality).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
The definition of 'constitutional' is anything thr Supreme Court decides is constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Perhaps I'm missing some legal nuances here because honestly I haven't paid close attention to this issue. But given that the executive branch is supposed to be implementing the laws that have been passed by Congress it does seem like selectively choosing to ignore legislation is violating the constitution. Obama himself previously dismissed exactly the policy he is now pursuing as something that was outside the scope of his powers as President. The President is allowed to decide how to enforce existing laws and when to prosecute through his Attorney General. Civil Rights and taxation are specifically IN the constitution so that's a bad comparison. Theoretically, yes, the President could say he's not going to prosecute tax evaders or civil rights cases but those would be more direct violations of the constitution since those are are in there already. Think marijuana growers in States where it's legal. Technically, they're breaking federal law but should we raid all the pot shops? The president can decide through his AG whether to prosecute them. Extrapolate that and what Obama has done with immigration is say "don't enforce this particular law" because it's stupid and misguided. Someone smarter than me can add to it and correct me. edit: So I assume Rush must have been on loving fire today. Where's kik2dagroin with my daily does of hate filled bile? BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
A lot of people are mentioning the earlier Obama quotes on the issue without the context. He was saying he preferred if Congress acted on immigration back then. That changed after the Senate passed a bill but then Boehner refused to debate even parts of it. Even in his speech last night he called out Congress for inaction. His actions are perfectly legal since they fall under prosecutorial discretion, and he has the right to tell the DOJ or DHS what they should do since they are under his purview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:Yeah I am sincerely appalled by how blase I am about mass shootings now. When that thing happened up there in Canada near parliament or whatever I was surprised by all the memeing and posting about what a tragedy it was and all the celebration of the old man who shot him. It was so minor it didn't even register on my radar. I live in Florida and barely gave a second thought to a shooting at FSU. What a country! I feel like the media has been downplaying mass shootings a lot. Where once they were in the paper for pretty much the whole week when one happened, now they don't really make the front page. Maybe cause something has to top Sandy Hook to do that again and it hasn't happened or everyone buys into the media coverage creates these people thinking I'm not sure. But even yesterday with the FSU shooting like it was a non-event, that thankfully no one, except the shooter died in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I feel like the media has been downplaying mass shootings a lot. Where once they were in the paper for pretty much the whole week when one happened, now they don't really make the front page. Maybe cause something has to top Sandy Hook to do that again and it hasn't happened or everyone buys into the media coverage creates these people thinking I'm not sure. But even yesterday with the FSU shooting like it was a non-event, that thankfully no one, except the shooter died in. Every time there is a mass shooting people say the media go too crazy covering it. There's always someone (and this isn't about political sides) that comes out and says "stop giving these shooters glory and attention, report the news and move on" and it really seems like that's what's happening now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Every time there is a mass shooting people say the media go too crazy covering it. There's always someone (and this isn't about political sides) that comes out and says "stop giving these shooters glory and attention, report the news and move on" and it really seems like that's what's happening now. I'd agree, but nobody perished besides the shooter in the FSU shooting, if students had died, it would have been blown up just as huge as other shootings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I feel like the media has been downplaying mass shootings a lot. Where once they were in the paper for pretty much the whole week when one happened, now they don't really make the front page. Maybe cause something has to top Sandy Hook to do that again and it hasn't happened or everyone buys into the media coverage creates these people thinking I'm not sure. But even yesterday with the FSU shooting like it was a non-event, that thankfully no one, except the shooter died in. Yeah, but I heard Kim Kardashian has huge hiney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Just walked past the tv in the common area of my office and CNN was on, the headline "Obama Slammed For Quoting Bible Scripture."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Slammed because someone didn't like the message or because he had the audacity to talk about the Bible as a godless heathen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The President is allowed to decide how to enforce existing laws and when to prosecute through his Attorney General. Civil Rights and taxation are specifically IN the constitution so that's a bad comparison. Theoretically, yes, the President could say he's not going to prosecute tax evaders or civil rights cases but those would be more direct violations of the constitution since those are are in there already. It also says in the constitution that Congress makes laws and then the President is expected to enforce them. I just don't see how the constitution gives much wiggle room here. Honestly this just seems to be yet another example of why the American system's decision to have an executive who is totally removed from the legislature is a terrible idea. No wonder this arrangement so often leads to coup d'tats or gridlock. As terrible as it is I'll stick with the British parliamentary system over the disaster that is the American system of government. FlamingLiberal posted:A lot of people are mentioning the earlier Obama quotes on the issue without the context. He was saying he preferred if Congress acted on immigration back then. That changed after the Senate passed a bill but then Boehner refused to debate even parts of it. Even in his speech last night he called out Congress for inaction. That seems to be directly contradicted by Obama here: quote:THE PRESIDENT: Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn't mean I don't know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns and I understand them. And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way. Whether or not this manoeuvre is actually constitutional it seems pretty clear that Obama didn't think it was in 2011. Then again Obama will seemingly say anything to justify whatever his policy is at that moment so maybe the real take away here is just that he's incredibly dishonest, which is a bit like saying that water is wet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Mr Hands Colon posted:Just walked past the tv in the common area of my office and CNN was on, the headline "Obama Slammed For Quoting Bible Scripture." Cue that Reza Aslan interview where the FOX host asks why a Muslim would write about Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Perhaps I'm missing some legal nuances here because honestly I haven't paid close attention to this issue. But given that the executive branch is supposed to be implementing the laws that have been passed by Congress it does seem like selectively choosing to ignore legislation is violating the constitution. Obama himself previously dismissed exactly the policy he is now pursuing as something that was outside the scope of his powers as President. I think the important distinction is he isn't so much "ignoring the law entirely" but "reprioritizing." Technically, all 12 million should be kicked out of the country, but there's no logistical way to do that. So what he's saying is that if you meet all these criteria, you are the lowest possible priority for deportation, and with the ammount of resources we have to deport people that means you are not going to be deported in the next two and a bit years. It's like how the cops *could* give speeding tickets to every single speeder going even a tiny bit over the speed limit, but they prioritize their resources and usually don't bother if your only going 5 over the limit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
quote:"Obama Slammed For Quoting Bible Scripture." That was the funniest takeaway from the speech that I saw ringing through RWM. He quoted scripture at them and they're absolutely flailing for reasons that's against the rules without addressing the crux of the matter and why they're allowed to ignore this bible verse while non-christians around the nation are expected to abide by others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
So? Even if what you say is true, he changed his mind. So what? If you change your mind on something within a 3 year time span you become completely dishonest and will say anything to justify it? Yeah I thought so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:So? Even if what you say is true, he changed his mind. So what? If you change your mind on something within a 3 year time span you become completely dishonest and will say anything to justify it? Yeah I thought so. Yeah, if a week is a long time in politics, three years is seven or eight eternities. Back then he was still hoping Congress would actually send something across his desk, now he knows that isn't happening, so he has to do what he can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Hell, ins't that quote talking about changing the laws and not EO specifically? Remember that this program will end when Obama leaves office since it's a directive from the executive and not actual legislation. Also, pretty much every president in the past 50 years has taken EO on this issue so it's not like this is breaking precedent on the powers of the presidency or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:I think the important distinction is he isn't so much "ignoring the law entirely" but "reprioritizing." Technically, all 12 million should be kicked out of the country, but there's no logistical way to do that. So what he's saying is that if you meet all these criteria, you are the lowest possible priority for deportation, and with the ammount of resources we have to deport people that means you are not going to be deported in the next two and a bit years. It's like how the cops *could* give speeding tickets to every single speeder going even a tiny bit over the speed limit, but they prioritize their resources and usually don't bother if your only going 5 over the limit. I get the argument and I realize that there is a grey area here that he's taking advantage of. I just think it's a bit rich for democrats in this thread to be pretending that behaviour like this isn't a clear indication of a broken constitutional system. "Oh no, this is fine, it's totally normal for the President to choose which laws he is going to enforce." I mean hey, if for once the president violating the constitution means that millions of immigrants can live slightly better lives then go for it. But don't blind yourself to what is going on here. I find it remarkable that Obama is literally on record saying this action would violate his constitutional role and yet there are people here saying "Oh no you're just taking that comment out of context." This is exactly the sort of tribalistic behaviour that the Republicans are rightly mocked for. Can't we take a more nuanced view of Obama's actions? They are clearly violating the spirit of the constitution and if/when a Republican President does something similar four or eight or twelve years from now I bet the same people in this thread who are defending Obama now will howl with outrage. Unzip and Attack posted:So? Even if what you say is true, he changed his mind. So what? So acknowledge the reality of the situation. I don't think it is healthy for people to be deluding themselves about what is going on here. Too many posters are pretending this is a routine action rather than a rather extraordinary manoeuvre that Obama has arguably been forced into thanks to how broken the system has become. Unless you're actually naive enough to believe that Obama genuinely changed his mind on this issue rather than making a political calculation that his party needs to bolster its support amongst hispanics. I understand why someone might hold their nose and vote Democratic but I don't understand why so many Democrats still rush to defend Obama's record, integrity or competence. The America government is broken and Democrats are a big part of the problem. I understand supporting them as the means to an end but at least hold on to your critical thinking skills while you do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
I think it's a lot more likely he knew there was a decent argument either way and in 2011 it benefited him to argue that it wasn't, in 2014 it benefits him to argue that it is. He wasn't taking some stark moral stance that he's betrayed, it was an opinion on whether or not he was allowed under the law. Now he'll find out definitively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I get the argument and I realize that there is a grey area here that he's taking advantage of. I just think it's a bit rich for democrats in this thread to be pretending that behaviour like this isn't a clear indication of a broken constitutional system. "Oh no, this is fine, it's totally normal for the President to choose which laws he is going to enforce." But he's not doing that. What he is doing is taking Group A (undocumented workers) and dividing them into sub groups, Group Ab, Group Ac, Group Ad etc and announcing that, from now on, he is prioritizing them. Group Ac is undocumented workers that have committed a crime, he's going after them first, Group Ad is skilled workers, he's ignoring them for now, group Ab is children of immigrants who came here before they could walk, have no criminal history or affiliations, have graduated or served in the military, he's ignoring them too. He's NOT "choosing which laws to enforce" he's enforcing current law better, more efficiently. Unless you think that the limited resources we have to track down and deport undocumented workers should be equally spent between 19 year old choir boy college students and professional criminals that eat babies for a living.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I get the argument and I realize that there is a grey area here that he's taking advantage of. I just think it's a bit rich for democrats in this thread to be pretending that behaviour like this isn't a clear indication of a broken constitutional system. "Oh no, this is fine, it's totally normal for the President to choose which laws he is going to enforce." This is routine. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I had no idea the right wing was defending Cosby until I read about it here. Knowing this now, I decided to look at the comments on a Fox article about Bill Cosby's most recent accuser. Two of the top comments (each with almost a thousand likes) argue that if this had really happened, Cosby would have been lynched, so therefore it must not be true. I don't think that even the worst of our regulars here would touch that argument. Good lord. Someone also noted that this sounds more and more like "the Herman Cain situation", which they apparently still view as a false flag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Huge Liability posted:Two of the top comments (each with almost a thousand likes) argue that if this had really happened, Cosby would have been lynched, so therefore it must not be true. I don't think that even the worst of our regulars here would touch that argument. Good lord. I don't think a lot of people here doing their best/worst Teabagger impression could have come up with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Good thing Glenn Beck got over his mysterious illness just in time to accuse the media of raping Bill Cosby by talking about the numerous rape allegations against him.Glenn Beck posted:You said you would not do that. Since when does your ‘no’ mean ‘yes?’ Do you know the definition of ‘no,’ sir? You’ve just raped Bill Cosby. You said you wouldn’t do it. You just did it and then you blamed it on him. My gosh, maybe we should have a lesson on rape. Right Wing Media: You've just raped Bill Cosby. Source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:Right Wing Media: You've just raped Bill Cosby. Seriously this needs to be the new thread title. (I don't even know who the current title is referencing.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Right Wing Media: Ho ho ho! Merry Holidays!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Seriously this needs to be the new thread title. Some guy came in a while ago and insisted that Rachel Maddow was just as bad as Rush and the gang, so I guess they turned that around and made the title as a joke
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:
I feel like I'm in that joke Gilbert Gottfried did for Bob Sagat's roast. "Do you remember when BILL COSBY DRUGGED AND RAPED MULTIPLE WOMEN? Why is everyone still talking about when BILL COSBY DRUGGED AND RAPED MULTIPLE WOMEN? I'm really sick of hearing about how BILL COSBY DRUGGED AND RAPED MULTIPLE WOMEN!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Some guy came in a while ago and insisted that Rachel Maddow was just as bad as Rush and the gang, so I guess they turned that around and made the title as a joke IIRC that GIP mod who was modding this forum for the Halloween switched the thread title before that
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I mean hey, if for once the president violating the constitution means that millions of immigrants can live slightly better lives then go for it. But don't blind yourself to what is going on here. I find it remarkable that Obama is literally on record saying this action would violate his constitutional role and yet there are people here saying "Oh no you're just taking that comment out of context." He's not violating the constitution and those quotes are sort of taken out of context. Helsing posted:This is exactly the sort of tribalistic behaviour that the Republicans are rightly mocked for. Can't we take a more nuanced view of Obama's actions? They are clearly violating the spirit of the constitution and if/when a Republican President does something similar four or eight or twelve years from now I bet the same people in this thread who are defending Obama now will howl with outrage. When Republicans do something similar like help poor people and immigrants, I promise i won;t howl with outrage. Helsing posted:Too many posters are pretending this is a routine action rather than a rather extraordinary manoeuvre that Obama has arguably been forced into thanks to how broken the system has become. It's quite routine and Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any President in the last 16 out of 19 presidents dating back to 1858. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Helsing posted:Unless you're actually naive enough to believe that Obama genuinely changed his mind on this issue rather than making a political calculation that his party needs to bolster its support amongst hispanics. If that were true, he would have done it before the election. I don;t think he changed his mind in as much as it took him 6 or 7 years to realize that no matter what he does, the GOP will call him a Commie, Fascist, Muslim Tyrant. Helsing posted:I understand why someone might hold their nose and vote Democratic but I don't understand why so many Democrats still rush to defend Obama's record, integrity or competence. The America government is broken and Democrats are a big part of the problem. I understand supporting them as the means to an end but at least hold on to your critical thinking skills while you do it. Most posters here aren't all that fond of Obama and are quite vocal about it. If they're defending him at all in this particular case, it's because there's a difference between acknowledging that, while perhaps his means are abit of an end-around, what he's doing is totally within the law and in no way represents tyrannical government and him wiping his rear end with the constitution as so many GOP house Representatives and pundits seem to be suggesting. We're not living under Mussolini here but if you listen to the GOP, Rush and FOX, we are. "Defenders" are pointing out that this is a completely normal thing he's doing and well within the law. But please continue with false equivalencies and explaining to thread why we're all Obama apologists whi have no problem with drone strikes, warrantless wiretaps and what have you since it's totally the same thing and we're all tribalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
That GOP-led House Subcommittee on Benghazi released their final report, admitting that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the White House or anyone. Interesting to see what the RWM reaction will be on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
oh
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
It's a friday infodump, they don't want anyone to know about it and most of the people who care would rather pretend they don't know about it. Keep an eye out for a freep thread but I don't know how much further it'll go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That GOP-led House Subcommittee on Benghazi released their final report, admitting that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the White House or anyone. Interesting to see what the RWM reaction will be on this. Just wait until they release the REAL report from the REAL investigation...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:08
|
|