US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1205

On August 08 2014 00:30 NovaTheFeared wrote:


You might have a point about this if real sanctions are imposed. Like the ones against Iran which led to a massive devaluation of their currency. The sanctions the west imposed were so weak Russia feels free to announce retaliatory sanctions that also hurt its own economy. I read an NYT article that said analysts expect inflation to increase 1-2%. That'll be worrying for them, but not destabilizing. Which is kind of the point.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy said during a radio interview on Wednesday that God has told him that the federal government needs to be disarmed.

Bundy appeared on Salt Lake City radio station KUER and elaborated on comments he made recently at a meeting of the Independent American Party in St. George, Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Bundy said he still feels strongly about the need for sheriffs throughout the nation to take away weapons from federal law enforcement, and he said he believes God has told him as much.

"I have no idea what God wants done, but he did inspire me to have the sheriffs across the United States take away these weapons, disarm these bureaucracies, and he also gave me a little inspiration on what would happen if they didn’t do that," Bundy said, according to the Tribune. "It was indicated that 'this is our chance, America, to straighten this problem up. If we don’t solve this problem this way, we will face these same guns in a civil war.'"

Bundy's ongoing land dispute with the Bureau of Land Management escalated to an armed standoff between militia members and federal officials back in April. The BLM eventually backed off and Bundy declared victory.

On August 08 2014 02:09 coverpunch wrote:

Bundy's 15 minutes of fame were up a hell of a long time ago. Let's please stop giving him credence by posting about him.

Now that the House has approved a lawsuit against President Obama and impeachment cries have increased, a few conservative groups have put together "National Impeach Obama Week."

The groups are organizing protests during the week of August 23 to call for Obama's impeachment, according to a blog post by activist Robert Ogden on the conservative blogging site, Western Journalism.

"Gerald Ford said after the Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment that an 'impeachable offense' is whatever the Congress will vote for at a given time. We are not here to argue about what is impeachable, but to demand that this lawless, subversive and anti-American president be removed from office," the organizers wrote on the Impeach Obama Week website.

The groups offer a list of Obama's impeachable offenses and call on other activists to organize rallies during the last week of August.

On August 08 2014 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:



Well he is a representative for all those groups who rallied behind him, and the few who are still supporting him. As much as many of us wish he was an isolated case, his nit-wittery is pretty common among the people who he agrees with politically.

As stupid and crazy as God telling you to disarm the government is, his warning of an impending civil war has real roots in the movements that came to his aid in defying federal authorities.

So is Bundy a crazy bigot? Of course. But that didn't keep people from rallying to his side. He just unwittingly said in front of the cameras the kind of things that are generally reserved for private meetings.

in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

Impeachment chatter has also become common on cable news. On Fox News this month, Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, called for Obama’s impeachment, for instance. But for every mention of impeachment on Fox News in July, there have been five on liberal-leaning MSNBC.

On August 08 2014 04:54 coverpunch wrote:
Someone might have posted this already, but someone counted and apparently Democrats care way more about impeachment than Republicans:



The article also points out that Democratic fund-raising groups have been sending out e-mails casting Obama as a victim of impeachment threats as a way to galvanize readers and get donations.

On August 08 2014 04:55 aksfjh wrote:

Because it riles up the base to protect their cause and make the other side look like idiots...

Days before Congress adjourned for its August recess, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) sent a copy of the Bible to all 535 members of Congress, calling on lawmakers to reflect on “God’s word” when deciding on “policy decisions that impact America’s future.”

“On a daily basis, we contemplate policy decisions that impact America’s future. Our staffs provide us with policy memos, statistics and recommendations that help us make informed decisions,” the Assistant House Majority Whip wrote on July 29 in a personal note accompanying the holy books. "However, I find that the best advice comes through meditating on God's word. Please find a copy of the Holy Bible to help guide you in your decision-making."

The letter, obtained by Talking Points Memo, states that the gifts were donated by J.B. Atchison, one of Palazzo's South Mississippi constituents, who requested that they be distributed to Congress so that lawmakers “could read God's word and abide by his 10 commandments.”

Distributing all the books took interns and staffers “several days,” Palazzo spokeswoman Jill Duckworth told USA Today.

While no non-Christian lawmakers have objected to the handout thus far, according to Business Insider, Palazzo’s actions drew fire from secular groups criticizing the tea party congressman for setting a specific religious doctrine as a universal guide for public policy.

Although Palazzo presented the Bible as a source of reconciliation amid a gridlocked Congress, Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized the gesture as inappropriate and exclusionary.

President Obama signed legislation Thursday that tries to mend the broken Veterans Affairs system, providing money to improve facilities and hire more medical staff, along with allowing more veterans to use private facilities. The bill is aimed at cutting veterans' long wait times for health care.

The president signed the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 one week after it gained congressional approval; the signing ceremony was held at Fort Belvoir, an Army base in Virginia.

"This bill covers a lot of ground," Obama said, "from expanding survivor benefits and educational opportunities, to improving care for veterans struggling with traumatic brain injury and for victims of sexual assault."

Obstinate, hopelessly partisan and incapable of problem-solving, Congress is a mess. But that doesn’t grant the president license to tear up the Constitution. As Mr. Obama himself said last fall: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.” To act on his own, the president said, would violate those laws.

...

The right response to the collapse of the U.S. immigration system is for Congress to fix the law. The House had a vehicle to do just that by taking up the legislation passed by the Senate last year. But it does not follow that Congress can be ignored based on its failure to act. The right response to lawmakers who won’t solve the immigration mess is to replace them with ones who will.

On August 08 2014 14:47 Introvert wrote:
I don't agree with the way they present everything, but even The Washington Post gets it.



Source

On August 08 2014 18:17 Simberto wrote:
The main thing that can be learned from this is that a system that is based on two parties whose interests are to oppose each other cooperating to get stuff done is not a system that gets stuff done.

On the other hand, a system where the president makes all the decisions on his own is called a dictatorship.

The reasonable solution is to have a system that can pass even if some of the people involved in lawmaking disagree. Like, for example, a system where you don't need a 60% majority to get something done. Or a system with more than two parties, so if your ruling coalition does not have a majority in one of the two houses, you can try to convince one of the other parties in there to help you by making some concessions, instead of having only one partner to negotiate with who has absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever because if nothing happens, he can try to make that look like it's your fault.

One of the major advantages of a multiparty system is also that making the other guy look bad is far less effective than making yourself look good. In a two party system, apparently a lot more effort is put into making the other guy look bad, so the voters think they have no choice but to vote for you because at least you are not as bad as the other guy. In a multiparty system, they might just vote for someone else entirely.