|
pathetic little tramp posted:Here's a nice copy paste you can send to your republican friends who are lying to themselves and trying to say this doesn't look bad and simultaneously saying democrats get softball questions: And I mentioned this before, but these sorts of primary debate questions aren't just tough, but they serve a purpose for the candidates. A good candidate WANTS to get asked about their biggest weaknesses during the primary, answer it, digest it, develop counter-narratives, etc. If you want to win in the general, these things are necessary. Of course, if all you want is to be able to come back in 4 years for another payday, then it's obviously a problem.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Family Values posted:No, see, you don't need to know the details of their agenda, just that they could have an agenda, and if they did, you would like it. Anything else is just gotcha bullshit from the lieberal media. I think you'll find that they've asked some of the best people, these are great people, and they've all loved the agenda. It's a great agenda. It's a great agenda! Their agenda is so great that some of the best agenda people are in love with their great agenda. You're gonna love it. It'll be great. Great and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:I'm starting to suspect that this sort of thing is predicted and to some extent staged. The "gif-able moment" is the new sound byte. There was a couple of articles written about this right after the entire Benghazi hearing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:I'm starting to suspect that this sort of thing is predicted and to some extent staged. The "gif-able moment" is the new sound byte. I don't think it's predicted or staged, but we're definitely seeing the soundbite evolve into a sort of video-bite that demands different behaviors and playing to different strengths from the candidates. I read a pretty good article about this recently, but it's impossible to find now because googling "hillary clinton gif" just brings up a million listicles and social media posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:A good question: Didn't the Romney/Ryan campaign answer this question in 2012 with "you'll find out after I'm elected"? Questions about implementing economic agendas are always "gotcha" questions to the GOP because they know their policies are unworkable or crippling to anyone not making 6+ figures and it's unfair to just go ahead and point this out right off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I don't think it's predicted or staged, but we're definitely seeing the soundbite evolve into a sort of video-bite that demands different behaviors and playing to different strengths from the candidates. I'm phone posting so no link but the article was by Matt Bors over on his Medium page, called "The GIF Bite Election"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
But Rocks Hurt Head posted:I'm phone posting so no link but the article was by Matt Bors over on his Medium page, called "The GIF Bite Election" That was it, thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Good to see my Congressman calling out the administration for using a false justification to go to war this morning.quote:“This announcement raises serious questions about the Administration’s strategy in the region. There may be credible answers but, without the engagement of Congress consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, the American people will not get the answers to which they are entitled. I've only seen the usual suspects (in addition to Welch), like Barbara Lee and Justin Amash calling for this in the House, but Tim Kaine did give a Senate speech today about the need for an actual declaration of war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Good to see my Congressman calling out the administration for using a false justification to go to war this morning. One of my senators isn't happy with it either: quote:@ChrisMurphyCT: Escalation after escalation after escalation in Syria. Deafening silence from Congress. The Constitution withering away before our eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Jeb! just lost and/or fired his Chief Operating Officer.The Wall Street Journal posted:The highest-ranking official known to lose her job in Jeb Bush’s flagging campaign is Christine Ciccone, the campaign’s chief operating officer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
greatn posted:It was embarrassing and the worst thing in the prequels No, the worst thing was Also, midichlorians. Midichlorians literally killed the magic of the Force. The Force is now a STD. It's a steroid injection. It's nothing special at all. It's an inherited genetic superiority over common people. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:No, the worst thing was "Yes, Emporer. Slaughtering 6 years olds makes perfect sense. Let's throw away a young batch of force sensitive users instead of trying to turn them."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, Emporer. Slaughtering 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
$144k/yr for a COO is pretty lovely, let alone a 40% cut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html Boehner's last act a) ended federal ban on marijuana research and b) prohibits feds from raiding retail ops in states where weed's legal a good boehner
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Yes, Emporer. Slaughtering 6 years olds makes perfect sense. Let's throw away a young batch of force sensitive users instead of trying to turn them." Hey man, can't break the Rule of Two. Throws off the dynamic...or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Didn't the Romney/Ryan campaign answer this question in 2012 with "you'll find out after I'm elected"? Romney based his entire economy recovery on "thing's will get better because businesses will feel safer once I'm elected" the crux of his plan was a magical economic recovery based on how happy everyone would be that Romney was finally elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:08
|
|
Joementum posted:Good to see my Congressman calling out the administration for using a false justification to go to war this morning. Has anyone ever tried to bring a scotus case with regard to the authorization to use force?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Seems like a textbook political question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Has anyone ever tried to bring a scotus case with regard to the authorization to use force? There is no chance in hell the Supreme Court would take the case. The Supreme Court is not willing to issue orders on how military units are to be deployed and used: if Congress is unhappy with the President over the use of force, their remedy is impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
euphronius posted:Seems like a textbook political question. But surely if Congress authorizes x and the executive does y, whether that is legal is a question of being adjudicated by a court?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is no chance in hell the Supreme Court would take the case. The Supreme Court is not willing to issue orders on how military units are to be deployed and used: if Congress is unhappy with the President over the use of force, their remedy is impeachment. Yeah I'm sure they wouldn't, I just want to know how the constitutional theory of it is supposed to work in the abstract
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Well there's nothing stopping Congress from coming together and saying to the Executive, "Hey, loving stop that, there's no way we authorized you to do that when you cite that other thing as your justification," except for the fact that Congress itself doesn't want to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:But that's what doesn't make sense. No one in the Senate actually knows about the blockade, largely because the Trade Federation was preventing anyone from entering or leaving Naboo, but also because Naboo is a small, out of the way planet that doesn't trade a whole lot to begin with. When Amidala finally gets before the Senate and pleads her case, no one responds because this is the first they're hearing about such a blockade. The Neimoidians swear up and down that the allegations of a blockade are untrue, and call for an investigation into the matter. If they were trying to protest the taxes and get them removed, they wouldn't try and prevent everyone from knowing about their protest. So there are three layers to this plot. Naboo does actually trade; the blue poo poo that the Gungans make bombs out of is a valuable energy source. The human Naboo were suckered by Palpatine's master, Darth Plagueis, into selling it below market rates to the Trade Federation. Eventually the Naboo tried to break out of the deal and this pissed off the Federation mightily, as imperial powers that lose most favored nation status tend to be. So Palpatine cooks up this scheme to get himself elected on the back of a crisis and suggests that the Trade Federation blockade Naboo in retaliation for breaking the exploitative treaty, with a "tax protest" as a pretext, presumably so that Freepers and Very Serious People the galaxy over would fawn over them.  Too bad almost all of this was relegated to a book instead of becoming Joementum's dream Star Wars film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah I'm sure they wouldn't, I just want to know how the constitutional theory of it is supposed to work in the abstract The constitutional theory is that Congress has a remedy, impeachment. The Supreme Court does not get involved because judging if the President has violated the Constitution in this aspect is delegated to Congress through its impeachment power. As for the abstract theory of how it is "supposed to work", the issue is the Constitution is ambiguous. The President is the Commander in Chief, the Congress can declare war. But there's no lines drawn about what the power to declare war means, and what powers the President lacks without a declaration of war. Most theory comes down on the side of the President: the President commands the military, and that power extends into peacetime. Congress can exercise its power of the purse to control the military but its ability to declare war does not act as a constraint on the President's powers - instead it's effectively a ceremonial role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah I'm sure they wouldn't, I just want to know how the constitutional theory of it is supposed to work in the abstract Doesn't this sort of brush up against "if the president does it, it isn't illegal"? Like the executive can do what it wants with the military, congressional authorization notwithstanding. The only possible enforcement is impeachment anyway, no matter how SCOTUS were to rule. I dunno, maybe that's dumb, it's Friday and I'm tired. Edit: beaten by someone smarter
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Doesn't this sort of brush up against "if the president does it, it isn't illegal"? It's more that the Supreme Court doesn't decide if it's illegal or not. Congress does. But Congress talks the talk but is never willing to walk the walk: Congress as an institution is perfectly happy to delegate warmaking power to the President while everyone politely agrees never to actually make push come to shove on if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:20
|
|
evilweasel posted:The constitutional theory is that Congress has a remedy, impeachment. The Supreme Court does not get involved because judging if the President has violated the Constitution in this aspect is delegated to Congress through its impeachment power. Thank you
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:But surely if Congress authorizes x and the executive does y, whether that is legal is a question of being adjudicated by a court? Who would even bring the law suit. The constitutional response is impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:I'm starting to suspect that this sort of thing is predicted and to some extent staged. The "gif-able moment" is the new sound byte. No this is bullshit. She had cameras on her for 11 hours. If she were doing it on purpose you would have had way more than just that and her making a face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
So what I'm reading is, if Congress wants to limit the ability of the President to send the military somewhere they should slash the military budget.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Then I say impeach Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised that nobody has ever made an rear end of themselves about the constitutionality of the WPR. Or maybe they have and everyone else was like "shut up, this doesn't go anywhere good".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:
The Force is strong in my family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
If congress and the president think it is constitutional it is probably constitutional. That's sort of how it works with gray area questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Qui-Gon's theories about midi-chlorians were not accepted by mainstream Jedi religious leaders and is one of the reasons he never made it onto the council. He believed a midichlorian count to have a causative relationship to a force user's potential, when in fact it was only correlative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
euphronius posted:Who would even bring the law suit. I asked the question for a reason. Standing would not be an issue in an English court.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:So there are three layers to this plot. Naboo does actually trade; the blue poo poo that the Gungans make bombs out of is a valuable energy source. The human Naboo were suckered by Palpatine's master, Darth Plagueis, into selling it below market rates to the Trade Federation. Eventually the Naboo tried to break out of the deal and this pissed off the Federation mightily, as imperial powers that lose most favored nation status tend to be. So Palpatine cooks up this scheme to get himself elected on the back of a crisis and suggests that the Trade Federation blockade Naboo in retaliation for breaking the exploitative treaty, with a "tax protest" as a pretext, presumably so that Freepers and Very Serious People the galaxy over would fawn over them.  that's still kind of dumb but at least makes the least bit of sense. I'll stop going on this derail but I will say that USPol is a more tolerable Star Wars thread than the actual Star Wars thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Hey, at least we didnt elect a a republican, they would have probably started another Iraq War! Eh? Eeeeh? eh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
