US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1137

On June 27 2014 01:32 Nyxisto wrote:
What has Obama done that is illegal? You should probably stop using that synonymously to "I don't like what he's doing"
And also he has passed half as many executive orders as most of his predecessors, Republican presidents included.

On June 27 2014 02:20 Yoav wrote:


I mean, drone strikes, for starters. Probably the surveillance program Releasing Berghdal without notification is likewise quite clearly a violation of federal law. Selective enforcement of laws is a tricky one, but the politicized way it was done really opens the door to Republican presidents not enforcing, say, gun laws or restrictions of harassing women near abortion clinics.

Not that these are exclusive to him, but the two bad presidents we've had in a row do mean a steady erosion of certain norms about the rule of law.

Liberals and democrats, however, have far fewer qualms about overstepping the bounds of the law. Hell, your posts -- among those of others in thread -- repeatedly justify acting outside of the law to effect domestic policy.

On June 27 2014 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:


Yeah, I totally agree on the drone stuff. I was mainly talking about domestic policies because it didn't seem like xDaunt has a problem with the legality of the military actions.

The rule of the thread is show, don't tell. If "the liberals" are violating the law all the time, our conservative friends here shouldn't have much problems pointing out where this has happened. (and wasn't stopped)

On June 27 2014 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not to mention, for the right, it's almost always a one way street.

For instance bonuses paid to financial firm employees who lied, cheated, openly sold products they knew were practically worthless, and nearly destroyed the global economy "Needed to be paid to preserve contract law"

But when you have legally negotiated contracts for employees who actually worked hard and produced something for decades then it's all "Unions should of known they weren't going to honor their contracts, excessive, unrealistic, blah, blah, blah,"

On June 27 2014 03:16 xDaunt wrote:
Really, my criticism has been directed at the tendency of the liberal/democratic base -- particularly posters in this thread -- to advocate throwing out the rule of law in pursuit of certain objectives. I have called out numerous of these illiberal posts, including yours.

On June 27 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Unions in Detroit and at GM had very favorable outcomes - they were put far ahead of bondholders even though doing so had dubious legal ground to stand on, from what I've read. State and local employment contracts sometimes need to be modified before bankruptcy happens - otherwise everyone becomes worse off.

Also, cars are not 100% defect free and perfectly safe, and yet they are regularly sold. There is a context in which things are sold, and the selling of financial products between sophisticated parties isn't like selling a hamburger to a consumer. Selling a "bad" product can be both completely legitimate and desirable for society.

Edit: I'm not arguing with your other points, just this bit of populism.

On June 27 2014 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:


The reason for this is the difference between the American system and the rest of world.
Most democracies have mechanisms in place to stop the gridlock that currently plagues the US and further considering that the rest of the world has a far more 'liberal' view its natural that we support the Democrats in bypassing this gridlock since it is impossible to resolve with the current situation.
In our eyes there is nothing wrong with using Executive orders to bypass it, sure you can argue it is "broken" but in our eyes your entire system is broken and this is the only way anything is going to get done.

National Republican leaders are toasting primary season as a smashing success over activist conservatives that has put the hard right on the ropes and given the Washington GOP the slate of candidates it wanted for 2014.

Those victories, however, have come at a staggering cost — and Republicans are painfully aware of the price of putting down an intraparty insurrection.

Establishment-aligned groups have already spent some $23 million on independent expenditures propping up favored House and Senate candidates in contentious primaries, according to a POLITICO review of Federal Election Commission records. By comparison, Republican nominees raised and spent that amount in the 2012 North Dakota, Indiana and Nevada Senate races combined — three of the most competitive campaigns fought that year.

The scope of the effort to suppress activist-backed candidates has been broader and costlier than is widely understood, covering at least 20 House and Senate primaries from North Carolina to California, and from coastal Mississippi to the outer tip of Long Island. The loose coalition of establishment forces encompasses two dozen advocacy groups, industry associations and super PACs that have raised and spent millions on behalf of Washington’s chosen candidates.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said the “quote ‘establishment’” had successfully divided up the primary map this year to avoid duplicating one another’s efforts. Eventually, Duncan said, outside groups on the right may realize that they’re better off working with the national party than raging against it. Indeed, in many cases this year, national party favorites have tacked well to the right to win their primaries.

On June 27 2014 04:07 RvB wrote:

So how will we combat a gridlock in The Netherlands if our ruling coalition only has a majority in one of the houses but not the other? Kind of the situation now but then with opposition parties not willing to negotiate.

Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R-MS) Senate campaign is calling on Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Joe Nosef to direct circuit clerks to provide the campaign with poll books from the June 3 Democratic primary and the June 24 Republican runoff between McDaniel and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), who won the runoff. But Nosef himself said he doesn't seem to have the authority to do that.

"I'm calling on the Mississippi GOP Chairman Joe Nosef to instruct circuit clerks to hand over the poll books for the June 3 Democratic primary election and the June 24 Republican primary runoff election to our agents promptly upon request," McDaniel said in a statement on Thursday. "Circuit clerks should be instructed to be as helpful as possible to our volunteers as they check the poll books."

The statement is the latest move by the McDaniel campaign in its search for voting irregularities in the June 24 runoff election. McDaniel, in his speech to supporters that night, said that there were a number of suspicious aspects about the election results and his campaign would look into it before he decided to concede in the race.

"We want to be clear: this is being done to maintain the integrity of the election process and that a fair and honest election was held on behalf of all Mississippians," McDaniel said in the new statement.

Nosef, when reached by TPM on Thursday, said he did not have a response to the McDaniel campaign's call. Asked if he even had the authority to order the circuit clerks to hand over the poll books Nosef said "no."

Likewise the Mississippi secretary of State's office said that poll books are kept by each county. To get them someone would need to submit a public records request to each county.

On June 27 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Unions in Detroit and at GM had very favorable outcomes - they were put far ahead of bondholders even though doing so had dubious legal ground to stand on, from what I've read. State and local employment contracts sometimes need to be modified before bankruptcy happens - otherwise everyone becomes worse off.

Also, cars are not 100% defect free and perfectly safe, and yet they are regularly sold. There is a context in which things are sold, and the selling of financial products between sophisticated parties isn't like selling a hamburger to a consumer. Selling a "bad" product can be both completely legitimate and desirable for society.

Edit: I'm not arguing with your other points, just this bit of populism.

On June 27 2014 08:57 zlefin wrote:
It certainly is good to have unanimous rulings; much better for the country. Wish we had more of them; there's still too many 5-4 rulings.


Though I haven't read the finer details of the case. Of course the supreme court only rules on constitutionality, not on whether something is a good or bad idea; so I have no idea on that point.

Well, I can't say what the president's logic was in doing it in the first place; but to call it scary is just more partisanship from you side; rather than looking at the reasons for it and issues it raises, and what future improvements could be made to the system.

On June 27 2014 09:10 zlefin wrote:
Would you then be happy if the republicans stopped engaging in their petty partisanship and focused on common sense and doing the job of governing?

I note it's not entirely a rebuke of such people; there's a difference between constitutional and right, which some may wish to point to. There's certainly matters in the constitution which could use some updating to fix, including issues related to, though perhaps not directly pertinent to, this case.

On June 27 2014 09:10 zlefin wrote:
Would you then be happy if the republicans stopped engaging in their petty partisanship and focused on common sense and doing the job of governing?

I note it's not entirely a rebuke of such people; there's a difference between constitutional and right, which some may wish to point to. There's certainly matters in the constitution which could use some updating to fix, including issues related to, though perhaps not directly pertinent to, this case.