|
Trabisnikof posted:If only America would withdraw, then surely the Middle East will calmly resolve itself without any meddling outsider influences.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:"Leftists" insisting the President should simultaneously rule dictatorially and that they oppose expansion of executive power ought to be a hell of a sight to see, but it's a sad part of the new normal. The President can't rule dictatorially, he has a limited set of actions he can take, pardoning people is actually one that's been around for a long time and considering a President started Guantanamo I don't really see how that's expanding presedential powers to basically undo it. But yes, he shouldn't have re-signed the patriot act or the AUMF in the first place and if he hadn't Guantanamo wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:
I only have a high school education and more is required to advance in today's job market. I don't have time to become a full-time student at a real university and I can't go to a community college because that's for dumb people. Why should the government decide which school I get to go to? Regular colleges routinely charge people $100,000 or more for a degree. What's the difference between that and me paying $100,000 for my degree in Entrepreneurship that I can take online at my own schedule?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You can pre-emptively pardon people. Nixon was. You're right, the precedent is there. I never read the pardon until now. The rest of your post reaffirms my belief in the impracticality of the pardon. Are there any other examples of full and unconditional pardons like Nixon's?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But still, you're missing the big picture if you think Oil people are happy with Obama. They might not hate him as much as Coal people do, but the API et al did not get their way with the Obama administration. If they did, the green completions rule, the CPP and the renewables tax credits wouldn't exist. But keystone would. So basically he's better than a Republican so we should all be happy? I'm glad that's the extent of your arguments thus far in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I only have a high school education and more is required to advance in today's job market. I don't have time to become a full-time student at a real university and I can't go to a community college because that's for dumb people. Why should the government decide which school I get to go to? "Regular colleges" It's just a banana, Michael. How much could it cost? Ten dollars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:
To the GOP governments only job is to make sure that as much public money as possibl is put into a few private pockets as possible until the system collapses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Glazier posted:To the GOP governments only job is to make sure that as much public money as possibl is put into a few private pockets as possible until the system collapses. The democrats job is to do the same thing but placate the masses a bit so they don't revolt for the next round of doubling down Trabisnikof posted:I'm just pointing out that "o&g likes Obama" is a sheltered as gently caress and wrong opinion. It's actually not but you can't comprehend a reality outside the bounds of the New York Times discourse
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So basically he's better than a Republican so we should all be happy? I'm glad that's the extent of your arguments thus far in this thread. I'm just pointing out that "o&g likes Obama" is a sheltered as gently caress and wrong opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If only America would withdraw, then surely the Middle East will calmly resolve itself without any meddling outsider influences. No I'm more thinking we just get out of the way and let them sectarian violence themselves to death instead of presenting ourselves as an easy target.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Considering the greatest cause of instability in the ME is Saudi Arabia, and our horribly complex, unethical, and sometimes downright evil relationship with them. Yep, might help. No, and it won't help Asia either. But hey let's propose some more incredibly dumb ideas. Maybe if America left the moon alone it would really become cheese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
kelvron posted:You're right, the precedent is there. I never read the pardon until now. The rest of your post reaffirms my belief in the impracticality of the pardon. Jimmy Carter granted full and unconditional pardons for all Vietnam draft dodgers, including people who were not charged with dodging the draft because they committed fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You can pre-emptively pardon people. Nixon was. The Geneva convention allows the release of prisoners on parole without repatriation or adoption. Obama can, quite literally, kick them out the door as free people so long as the prisoners themselves agree to the conditions of release, which the US Government can just put no conditions at all on the parole. They'd need to be transported back to an area where they can, at least in theory, find means to support themselves but beyond that I'm not aware of any other law that would prevent freeing them that way. Edit: That is assuming that none of the prisoners are US Citizens, which would complicate things a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The President can't rule dictatorially, he has a limited set of actions he can take, pardoning people is actually one that's been around for a long time and considering a President started Guantanamo I don't really see how that's expanding presedential powers to basically undo it. You don't seem to understand that closing Guantamano Bay via pardoning all the people held there had no base of political support in the legislature, a limited base of political support in the general public, and a substantial level of opposition would emerge if any moves were made toward it. Obama doing that would be the definition of an imperial presidency, someone ignoring all the customs of politics in order to get their way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Glazier posted:To the GOP governments only job is to make sure that as much public money as possibl is put into a few private pockets as possible until the system collapses. Not really
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
nessin posted:The Geneva convention allows the release of prisoners on parole without repatriation or adoption. Obama can, quite literally, kick them out the door as free people so long as the prisoners themselves agree to the conditions of release, which the US Government can just put no conditions at all on the parole. They'd need to be transported back to an area where they can, at least in theory, find means to support themselves but beyond that I'm not aware of any other law that would prevent freeing them that way. Had he done that, he would likely not have thawed relations with Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:No I'm more thinking we just get out of the way and let them sectarian violence themselves to death instead of presenting ourselves as an easy target. Ok at least this makes more sense. But I'm not sure I prefer the world with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel as the major powers in the Middle East better than USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel as the major powers in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I guarantee if he had just released those remaining few he would have been impeached. That's not even including the public outcry from members of both parties. While I agree that it's gross that we will absolutely be holding some of these people in Gitmo or elsewhere until they die, there just isn't a realistic scenario where they get released.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
nessin posted:The Geneva convention allows the release of prisoners on parole without repatriation or adoption. Obama can, quite literally, kick them out the door as free people so long as the prisoners themselves agree to the conditions of release, which the US Government can just put no conditions at all on the parole. They'd need to be transported back to an area where they can, at least in theory, find means to support themselves but beyond that I'm not aware of any other law that would prevent freeing them that way. It would be against the Geneva conventions and international law to dump them on a tiny sliver of American soil in a foreign country that was unwilling to accept them. There are no ports outside of US military facilities (which are banned from transporting prisoners) and a giant wall with armed guards on the Cuban side. Gitmo itself is also a very thin figleaf to avoid the Geneva conventions, but at least it is pretending. This would just be flagrantly illegal. Cuba would also be very opposed to the precedent of the US dumping people in Gitmo and encouraging them to find ways into Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Jimmy Carter granted full and unconditional pardons for all Vietnam draft dodgers, including people who were not charged with dodging the draft because they committed fraud. Carter specified the law that was broken in that, the Military Selective Service Act. Ford's pardon of Nixon didn't specify any crimes. I was looking for more open-ended pardons. I should've been more specific. cravius posted:Not really Counterpoint, the voting record of the GOP since 1980.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I guarantee if he had just released those remaining few he would have been impeached. That's not even including the public outcry from members of both parties. While I agree that it's gross that we will absolutely be holding some of these people in Gitmo or elsewhere until they die, there just isn't a realistic scenario where they get released. If he had done it on day one I guarantee you that would not have happened. If he had done it way later, very likely he would not have been impeached but even if he had, it would have cleared the house but not the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
botany posted:If he had done it on day one I guarantee you that would not have happened. If he had done it way later, very likely he would not have been impeached but even if he had, it would have cleared the house but not the senate. I think a lot of liberals forget that there's actually a huge amount of public support for anti-war movements and it's not some kind of unrealistic position to take to oppose continued military intervention around the world or as they like to call it, "the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy" it's become painfully clear who's agenda is being pushed with our foreign policy and it's not that of the American people, but of the corporations. Ironically enough this probably ended up helping Trump in the general election because Hillary has the MIC shoved so far up her own rear end in the name of politics she can't actually say anything that people want to hear. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Yes, in accordance with Godwin's Law some people do accuse whoever they don't like of being Nazis. But surely you're arguing in bad faith if you're suggesting that the risk of fascism is no higher now than it was under Bush or Obama. I'm not sure, what's the fascism index looking like today?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm not sure, what's the fascism index looking like today? Half a right-side up Mussolini.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Half a right-side up Mussolini. I'm glad I wasn't the only one imaging the Fascism Forecast being delivered in a style like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377aCGXmY9Q
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I think a lot of liberals forget that there's actually a huge amount of public support for anti-war movements and it's not some kind of unrealistic position to take to oppose continued military intervention around the world or as they like to call it, "the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy" it's become painfully clear who's agenda is being pushed with our foreign policy and it's not that of the American people, but of the corporations. That support and a buck will get you a coffee at McDonald's. Americans object to our lives being lost, but the prevalence of prison-rape jokes makes it obvious we love torture, and actual opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan was as often indifferent to the suffering inflicted as based upon objecting to the suffering. There's simply nobody that cares enough outside of those leftists who refuse to engage in politics on general principle. The factors pushing for the just solution are weak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm glad I wasn't the only one imaging the Fascism Forecast being delivered in a style like this The scale runs from 3 upside-down Mussolinis to 3 right-side-up Mussolinis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That support and a buck will get you a coffee at McDonald's. Americans object to our lives being lost, but the prevalence of prison-rape jokes makes it obvious we love torture, and actual opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan was as often indifferent to the suffering inflicted as based upon objecting to the suffering. Yeah few people were against Afghanistan ever effectronica because the Taliban was protecting Al Quada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Counterpoint, the voting record of the GOP since 1980. Lol if you equate voting to grow business and lessen government restrictions on entrepreneurs with supporting corporate fat cats. The Democrats have always been the party of Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
cravius posted:Lol if you equate voting to grow business and lessen government restrictions on entrepreneurs with supporting corporate fat cats. The Democrats have always been the party of Wall Street. Tell that to the Dems in 1936 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
cravius posted:Lol if you equate voting to grow business and lessen government restrictions on entrepreneurs with supporting corporate fat cats. The Democrats have always been the party of Wall Street. Weird how Wall Street is getting excited for Trump to remove Obama's regulations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:Weird how Wall Street is getting excited for Trump to remove Obama's regulations. Weird how Wall Street wanted Hillary to win
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
cravius posted:Weird how Wall Street wanted Hillary to win Turns out making less money is preferable to even the slightest possibility of nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
cravius posted:Weird how Wall Street wanted Hillary to win Turns out that Wall Street doesn't want a destabilizing force in the most powerful seat of the biggest consumer market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
cravius posted:Lol if you equate voting to grow business and lessen government restrictions on entrepreneurs with supporting corporate fat cats. The Democrats have always been the party of Wall Street. The stock market does seem to crash less when the Democrats are in power. Maybe because of those pesky government restrictions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
cravius posted:Weird how Wall Street wanted Hillary to win Yeah weird how gradual progress is preferable to them than the bumbling fascist clowns we're getting, who may initiate anything from mere financial chaos to nuclear holocaust
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
cravius posted:Lol if you equate voting to grow business and lessen government restrictions on entrepreneurs with supporting corporate fat cats. The Democrats have always been the party of Wall Street. Except I'm not. For one, voting to sell off profitable government assets to the highest bidder for short-term gains and long-term losses, that's right out of the GOP's playbook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That long list of things are mostly not under Obama's control. Obama couldn't have stopped fracing or magically change court rulings. Obama pushed the limit of what regulators can do without a new act of congress. Yeah if you want to know what Oil people want, look at who Trump is putting into his administration, like Mike Catanzaro, which wants to ban the federal government from considering climate change as a concern in policy decisions by federal agencies, and is tapped to be head of Trump's energy team. EDIT: Other likely things to occur and voiced by Oil lobbyists: Zeroing out of NASA's climate change monitering funds, along with NOAA and other federal agencies, along with monies for NEA grants and the like. Zeroing out of funds for agencies investigating fracking side-effects, from the NEA to the US Geographical Survey. Zeroing out or minimizing funding for EPA monitering of a wide swathe of industries, from clean water observation to fracking solution identification. Zeroing out of renewable energy funding across the board. Raising of subsisides for oil and gas companies. Mandating the Navy halts its clean energy drive, one of the biggest forces in the market. A bunch of horrendous poo poo that is escaping me (thankfully) right now. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
The Washington Post is reporting that the Ohio State has confirmed the campus stabber as student Abdul Razak Ali Artan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah few people were against Afghanistan ever effectronica because the Taliban was protecting Al Quada. Shut up, Crowsbeak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:44
|
|