EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1178
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23659 Posts
On July 19 2014 14:12 Danglars wrote: How awfully realpolitik of you. I suppose somewhere down the line I hoped Obama might do something for the good of the country and not just a minority interest group. He deserves a break from the endless campaigning to do a bit of governing. Also, it would help further trade and help out an important ally that shares a border with us. He'd also be helping the little guy instead of talking endlessly about how the little guy would've been worse off if he hadn't done so much for him already. Was that a Nixon/Kissinger reference? Endless campaigning, communist tyrant, weakling, dictator by fiat, it's hard to keep a picture of whether we're talking about the feckless Obama or the Authoritarian Obama, or some new Obama of the week/day. He's going to sign it anyway (typical lefty extremist!) but I think the dems should attach a major bridge project with it. If we are going to sign off on building transportation for some oil we should make sure the bridges people cross every day are reasonably safe too? | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
On July 19 2014 12:41 Wolfstan wrote: Free trade zones removing trade barriers is a good thing. As a beneficiary of support jobs to the oilsands I can assure you that the jobs are not centered on corporate headquarters. You and Obama are dismissing for example the millions of tonnes ordered from steel mills and their employees, the miners who get to sell millions of tonnes of ore to the mills, the thousands of miles truckers get to bill shipping the steel to the construction site, local engineers to inspect every mile of pipeline, the hundreds of earthmovers that prepare the site. Those are real jobs, that pay real taxes. Obama is holding down those good paying jobs, while the left blasts Walmart and Co. for not giving a living wage instead of allowing private enterprise to do it's thing with shovel ready jobs. That steel will be made anyway. There aren't going to be any new steel mills constructed if the pipeline is approved. Demand for steel isn't going away anytime soon. A few thousand people will be employed for 2 - 3 years during construction. That's not even year round since I doubt they would go to the trouble of building during winter in Montana. Once it's finished, there will be hardly any permanent American jobs associated with the pipeline. How many jobs are going to be lost when the pipeline leaks and destroys the most important aquifer in America? Bitumen sinks, which was learned during the leak into the Kalamazoo river in Michigan. That one still hasn't been cleaned up, by the way. A leak is not that unlikely given TransCanada's mediocre pipeline integrity record. I would like to say that this issue is incredibly politicized. I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't either A) 100% in favor of the pipeline saying it's better than Jesus or B) 100% against it saying it's worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2014 15:45 SnipedSoul wrote: That steel will be made anyway. There aren't going to be any new steel mills constructed if the pipeline is approved. Demand for steel isn't going away anytime soon. A few thousand people will be employed for 2 - 3 years during construction. That's not even year round since I doubt they would go to the trouble of building during winter in Montana. Once it's finished, there will be hardly any permanent American jobs associated with the pipeline. How many jobs are going to be lost when the pipeline leaks and destroys the most important aquifer in America? Bitumen sinks, which was learned during the leak into the Kalamazoo river in Michigan. That one still hasn't been cleaned up, by the way. A leak is not that unlikely given TransCanada's mediocre pipeline integrity record. I would like to say that this issue is incredibly politicized. I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't either A) 100% in favor of the pipeline saying it's better than Jesus or B) 100% against it saying it's worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. Have you read the state department report on the pipeline? I found that to be a pretty good read, and it seemed low on bias. That was awhile ago of course, and I think it was the preliminary report. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Of course, a pipeline is much more economically efficient. That efficiency will undoubtedly lead to lower energy/product prices, which is good! It won't really do much for jobs in the short run though, and the returns are likely lower than large scale highway and other infrastructure improvements we could make for similar price tags. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 19 2014 11:34 xDaunt wrote: The only "legitimate" reason to oppose the XL oil pipeline is if you're looking to clamp down on petroleum consumption in general. Every other reason falls somewhere between the specious and the outright retarded. Not greenlighting and fast-tracking the XL oil pipeline is one of the dumbest things that the Obama administration has done. It's beneficial economically, diplomatically, strategically, even environmentally --- pretty much every reason imaginable. I remember when conservatives were outraged by Kelo. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Spurred on by the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby ruling, Eden Foods CEO Michael Potter has revived a March 2013 case to nix coverage of all birth control from his employees’ healthcare plans. In turn, many shoppers have soured on the organic food giant and are boycotting its products. “In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means -- including abortifacients and contraception -- is wrong,” Erin Mersino, Eden’s lawyer from the conservative Thomas More Law Center, said in a statement sent to The Huffington Post on Friday. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 20 2014 00:31 Roswell wrote: Elizabeth Warren is a complete tool, but shes 1/30th Native American so dems might start jacking off, (first woman president not bad as well.) 16 years of no compromise far left liberal policy would be just what this country needs. Ha. Hahahahaha. Lol. Like she could get anything done without a super majority in the Senate. Obama is quite moderate, and Republicans stonewalled him. There's no way Warren would get ANYTHING done. I'd be surprised if they let her fill a single cabinet position. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
On July 20 2014 00:31 Roswell wrote: Elizabeth Warren is a complete tool, but shes 1/30th Native American so dems might start jacking off, (first woman president not bad as well.) 16 years of no compromise far left liberal policy would be just what this country needs. I agree, someone who wants to hold bankers responsible for their crimes would just be terrible. And what's with wanting to help students with their loans? Doesn't she realize that there's money to be made? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23659 Posts
On July 20 2014 01:19 aksfjh wrote: Ha. Hahahahaha. Lol. Like she could get anything done without a super majority in the Senate. Obama is quite moderate, and Republicans stonewalled him. There's no way Warren would get ANYTHING done. I'd be surprised if they let her fill a single cabinet position. I mentioned this earlier but it's worth saying again. I don't think all the hate mongering will play nearly as well against a woman especially if it isn't Clinton. The country (outside Tea party folk) are already tired of Republican tactics. When independents see the kind of vitriol spewed at a woman instead of Obama that Republicans have made their bread and cheese, they will have conceded pretty much every minority and women to the Democrats for the next 2 elections. I think what would be hard on Warren is if she actually stuck to her guns and ended up pissing off a bunch of DINO's (I just wanted to use that term) This mid term will be pretty important, If McConnell somehow loses to Grimes and/or some other important races go the Dems way, it's a whole different ballgame going into 2016 | ||
|
sc2isnotdying
United States200 Posts
On July 18 2014 04:52 Danglars wrote: You'll have to do better than sweep aside claims of media bias with your right hand, and with your left say nothing you're asserting is open to questioning. Your modern American liberal, establishment Republicans, and some percentage of independents that make the claims you make. Consider Democrats now used to getting their way on things, advancing policies lurching to the left (in American context), unwilling to compromise with anyone who hasn't shifted with them. They think a compliant media will shift blame to the Republicans when they don't get 90% of what they want, so they're rewarded for dreaming big. On the flip side, the electorate is pissed off at out-of-touch politicians that promised them their same doctors, a secure border, and won't stand by their views when they aren't also popular on the Hill. You'd better believe they'll oppose policies if they fear getting tossed out on their backside for not representing their base. If you've spent all this time presenting your ideas for fixing the pressing issues, and convince enough people that they're the best plan amongst several, maybe I you don't abandon it all in Washington and stick to your guns. If obstructionist is the new parroted line, maybe they'd prefer men and women who stand for nothing and let the party opposed roll every piece of legislation over their prone bodies. It's been awhile since I've checked on this thread but I feel like this is worth responding too. First, let me reject the accusation that my assertions aren't open to questioning. When I say that Republican politics has shifted to the right, I'm representing a broader opinion than my own, which is why I say it's not controversial. There will always be a small number of political observers that reject the conventional wisdom. The argument you've made here, and correct me if I've missed your point, is that when the Democrats had control of Congress, their policy actions so alienated Republicans, that Republicans have had no choice but to adapt an obstructionist stance. It's either vote no or abandon your principles. It may be true that Republicans are just acting on their principles. I do question their motives, but for the sake of argument let's say that Republicans are blocking legislation in a good faith effort protect their deeply held conservative values. The point I'm trying to make is that those conservative values now exist at a point on the political spectrum that is farther to the right than they used to be. This makes compromise harder and thus we have an obstructionist Congress. I'm attributing that aforementioned shift to the right, not to Obama's policies as you have, but rather to redistricting that has made primaries matter more than general elections. And the reason it's a Republican thing instead of a both parties thing is that we can clearly witness Republican incumbents moving right to fend off primary challenges or getting replaced by somebody further to the right. That hasn't happened to Democrats in Congress. Democrats mostly just re-elect their team. You can continue to believe that Obama is responsible for the political deadlock in Washington but I'm not finding your argument convincing. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion. Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups. When Congress finds a person in contempt, the matter is referred to federal prosecutors to be brought before a grand jury. Legal experts advised against taking the step, and one of them, Gregory Gilchrist, told HuffPost at the time that it was unlikely a prosecutor would take up such a case, even though federal law spells out that pathway. The reason, he said, is that not only were the facts in the case weak, but courts have historically given prosecutors wide leeway in deciding whether to bring cases. "I just can't imagine that they would proceed with the case," Gilchrist said. "Unless the U.S. attorney takes a different view of the merits than I do, which I don't expect he will, I don't see any way this ends up in an actual charge." At Thursday's hearing, several Republicans demanded that Deputy Attorney General James Cole explain why prosecutors had not already moved forward. Source | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Apparently 1.5 million and growing. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 20 2014 03:57 sc2isnotdying wrote: I just can't see how your conventional wisdom is anything but listening to voices that already agree with you. The only thing that has changed lately is the pressure the base has put on Republican leaders to start representing their interests. Conservatives continue to stand for the same damn things, it's the Left that rushes towards the policies of European social democracies and environmental dogma, the same march they've undergone since at least the Great Society.It's been awhile since I've checked on this thread but I feel like this is worth responding too. First, let me reject the accusation that my assertions aren't open to questioning. When I say that Republican politics has shifted to the right, I'm representing a broader opinion than my own, which is why I say it's not controversial. There will always be a small number of political observers that reject the conventional wisdom. The argument you've made here, and correct me if I've missed your point, is that when the Democrats had control of Congress, their policy actions so alienated Republicans, that Republicans have had no choice but to adapt an obstructionist stance. It's either vote no or abandon your principles. It may be true that Republicans are just acting on their principles. I do question their motives, but for the sake of argument let's say that Republicans are blocking legislation in a good faith effort protect their deeply held conservative values. The point I'm trying to make is that those conservative values now exist at a point on the political spectrum that is farther to the right than they used to be. This makes compromise harder and thus we have an obstructionist Congress. I'm attributing that aforementioned shift to the right, not to Obama's policies as you have, but rather to redistricting that has made primaries matter more than general elections. And the reason it's a Republican thing instead of a both parties thing is that we can clearly witness Republican incumbents moving right to fend off primary challenges or getting replaced by somebody further to the right. That hasn't happened to Democrats in Congress. Democrats mostly just re-elect their team. You can continue to believe that Obama is responsible for the political deadlock in Washington but I'm not finding your argument convincing. It's not redistricting, it's Republicans that have faced a man willing to extend his own power until stopped by other powers. They were cowed by the show of force, the racism accusations, the obstructionist charge ... and the voters refused to put up with impotent leaders. The word is out that you must take stands and be willing to back them up with action. This is not some kind of imagined ideological drift more than simply carrying through on campaign promises. It is kind of like you only have a disgust for voters that get tired of the stripe of their representation and fire the guy. Oh, they've obviously barreled rightward and left the poor moderates behind, you say. No, indeed, the moderates were winning re-election with empty promises on immigration, the budget, the economy, and nowadays executive power, and their jig is finally up. The Tea Party candidates that won, or dented the incumbent's usual numbers, ran on the same Reagan message, the same message Newt Gingrich brought to gain 54 seats in '94, the same message that won Republicans the 2010 midterms (We were just so thrilled with the ACA, what can I say). Apparently the last of those mentioned was a false election because Republicans were expected to still behave like Pelosi was still in charge of the House and favorable to the Obama agenda. I fully admit that up on Capitol Hill and the political advisor class it might be conventional wisdom and in their minds stand unchallenged and unchallengeable. It's precisely because they're out of touch with ordinary folk that their opinions on the political lay of the land are so false. There will be more Cantors as long as Boehner and McConnell lead the purse strings and call the shots. Political analysts will continue to fumble onto newer excuses for the political climate that astounds them. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Gotta say it's one of the worst things I've ever paid to watch, even though I agree with a few of Dinesh's points. I also think it was a bit strawman-esque. While I appreciate how he didn't deliberately pick out crazy people from the left, he also doesn't pick out very valid political points from the left to begin with (eg a native american woman saying the Sioux deserves all of their land back, a mexican dude saying we need to return what we stole in the mexican-american war) and has equally ridiculous counter-examples to disprove those points, such as one mexican-american dude saying he would prefer to be a part of the US, an interview with some black woman in a nice house who says she stopped collecting welfare and went to college because she accepted Jesus, etc. If you want to see something grounded in logic, I wouldn't recommend it. The whole thing is a self-congratulatory appeal to emotion (since he knows his audience is mostly going to be conservative and wants to be validated) and he uses multiple one-man counter-examples to try to discredit some arguments, which is ridiculous since they were arguments that he picked himself in the first place. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The agreement between the P5+1 and Iran to extend the period of negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program is good news for those who support a peaceful resolution to the dispute. While it would have been remarkable if such a complex issue had been resolved in only six months, with a continued freeze on the development of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for modest sanctions relief, negotiators on both sides will now have the breathing room to hammer out the technical details necessary for a final deal. As has been the case for the six months following last November’s historic agreement in Geneva, the extension guarantees that Iranians do not progress on their nuclear program. As part of the interim deal, Iran eliminated all of its 20 percent enriched uranium, allowed for intrusive inspections to determine that no nuclear material is being diverted for non-peaceful purposes, and halted construction on new nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the limited sanctions relief given to Iran has strengthened the hand of moderate President Hassan Rouhani, who has so far been able to maintain the Supreme Leader’s essential support for the talks. Despite these positive developments, some in Congress are calling for an increase in pressure on Iran and are seeking to box in the American negotiating team through legislation that would dictate the terms of a final deal. Both actions would weaken our president and undermine U.S. credibility as an effective global leader. Passing new sanctions regulations — a clear violation of the Geneva agreement — would prompt Iran to back out of the talks and make the U.S. out to be the irresponsible actor. Ultimately, this would lessen our allies’ willingness to cooperate with us on Iran. An end to the talks would also be devastating to the moderate Rouhani government, which may represent our last hope at resolving the nuclear crisis peacefully. Rouhani and other Iranian moderates have gone out on a limb in arguing that negotiating with the West — especially the U.S. — is in Iran’s interest. If talks break down and sanctions increase, hardliners in Tehran will find a receptive audience when arguing that negotiations only make Iran vulnerable and that confrontation is the only answer. Source | ||
| ||
