EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 152
| 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. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
On March 07 2013 15:52 Adreme wrote: Is it weird that im less bothered by the US using drones domestically (even though I also cant think of a reason they would need to) then I am with there current use? Im not really bothered by the unmanned nature of them but when they are used to violate another countries sovereignty without there permission (which has happened a few times) that I start to have an issue. It's not like chickens have ever come back to roost. The US is always going to be a world superpower so it won't regret anything it does while it is. Really though, they're probably making sure they get all the family members of the targets with the drone strikes too so there is unlikely to be that much in the way of revenge attacks. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On March 07 2013 15:51 KwarK wrote: The whole standing endurance aspect of the filibuster doesn't really make sense in the modern era. Obviously it's a legacy of historical procedure which has evolved into part of the system but why not simply reform the system to allow anyone to delay for a fixed period of time. The endurance aspect means someone in good health could do it for a while with no real conviction while someone in poor health may be unable to hold the floor, no matter how important they feel the matter is. In Roman Senate procedure the Plebeian Tribune was sacrosanct and could potentially use his body to physically block the passing of a bill as nobody could interfere with him but they didn't make him do it every time, they just gave him a veto and assumed when he used his veto that he was expressing the desire to get up and stand in the way. Why not let procedure evolve alongside the practice. Any senator can filibuster indefinitely without having to stand up or say anything already. With cooperation from their colleagues, they can even anonymously prevent legislation from coming to a vote indefinitely. Rand chose to do a speaking filibuster as a sort of stunt, like Bernie Sanders did. e: also it is funny how the sacrosanctity of the Tribunates of the Plebs was WAY more progressive than any part of American government where we pretend everyone is equal. Remember that sacrosanctity was, strictly speaking, not a legal principle, but rather a shared oath of the body of Plebian Rome that they should rise up and kill any Patrician who violated it. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies." | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
It's the possibility that this enables. He's missing the point if he's using this president and this point in time as the only point of consideration. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday said he received an “outpouring of support” from congressional colleagues during his nearly 13-hour filibuster, which was so long he considered using a catheter before opting not to. “I’ve never seen that happen before,” Paul (R-Ky.) said of about 15 House members who arrived during his Wednesday filibuster on the Senate floor, which was designed to halt progress on confirming the White House’s nominee to lead the CIA. “They came spontaneously, nobody called them, they just showed up.” Rand Paul considered using a catheter lol | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 08 2013 05:07 McBengt wrote: Is there actually a point to filibustering white house nominees that I have failed to grasp? Aside from some kind of juvenile attempt to stick it to Obama? Are they seriously thinking they can keep these positions vacant? american politics = reality tv | ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
On March 08 2013 05:07 McBengt wrote: Is there actually a point to filibustering white house nominees that I have failed to grasp? Aside from some kind of juvenile attempt to stick it to Obama? Are they seriously thinking they can keep these positions vacant? No, but for them to reconsider a "suitable" candidate. To go all Hitler on you guys, making Hitler the minister of equality is a dumb move, since he's not very open minded. It's the same thing. You shouldn't give someone power to investigate US citizens if he has no respect for civil rights. Opposing someone based on their views when it concerns the job in question is fine, to an extend. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
rofl, I read a Japanese newspaper article that said the exact same thing about the Presidential election (they were trying to explain why young people are starting to pay attention to politics more). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 08 2013 05:12 NPF wrote: No, but for them to reconsider a "suitable" candidate. To go all Hitler on you guys, making Hitler the minister of equality is a dumb move, since he's not very open minded. It's the same thing. You shouldn't give someone power to investigate US citizens if he has no respect for civil rights. Opposing someone based on their views when it concerns the job in question is fine, to an extend. Will anyone filibuster if I nominate this guy for minister of hyperbole? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 08 2013 05:07 McBengt wrote: Is there actually a point to filibustering white house nominees that I have failed to grasp? Aside from some kind of juvenile attempt to stick it to Obama? Are they seriously thinking they can keep these positions vacant? To ask this means you missed the point of the filibuster. Rand Paul didn't talk for 13 hours about nothing just to stick it to Obama. He was making a very specific point that the administration needs to be more forthcoming about its drone policy. For now, most people aren't complaining simply because they trust Obama to do the right thing. He says the administration is very careful about selecting targets and trying to minimize collateral damage, and people believe him. But that's the problem. We don't know how he derives the authority to green-light drone strikes and what limits he has imposed on who can or cannot be a target. Rand Paul's point is that the public has a right to not take Obama's word for it. This isn't just about terrorists either. Due process is not solely about the accused and the convicted. People should know what the administration has done to prevent or compensate for blunders. I think Paul is exaggerating severely by making his hypotheticals about Obama killing US citizens in the US, but I do want the administration to be more transparent. Holding up Brennan's confirmation is a way to get Obama's attention. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The U.S. government cannot target an American citizen who is not engaged in combat on American soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday during his daily press briefing. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had on Thursday asked the administration if the president has the authority to use a mechanized drone against an American on U.S. soil who is not engaged in hostile activities. "The answer to that question is no," Carney said, reading from a new a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder addressed to Paul. Paul on Wednesday engaged in a 13-hour "talking" filibuster of the confirmation of the next CIA director over the issue of the president's authority to use drone strikes against U.S. citizens. He has said once the White House gives sufficient answer, he would allow a vote on the nomination of John Brennan. Appearing on CNN on Thursday afternoon, Paul declared that Holder's response was satisfactory and that he would allow a vote on Brennan's nomination. "I'm quite happy with the answer and I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it," Paul said. Source | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 08 2013 05:15 farvacola wrote: Will anyone filibuster if I nominate this guy for minister of hyperbole? Challenge accepted. I will not stop talking until I fall asleep. Which is never. Malnutrition will be what does me in. I'll let you know when I fall over from exhaustion xD On a more serious note, I find it funny how difficult it is for non-Americans to grasp the filibuster, while most of the people who live here, regardless of their politics, love it to death. One man squared off against the inevitability of time and an empty stomach. It's so beautiful I could cry  | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10960 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, who served as al-Qaeda's spokesman, has been arrested and detained in Jordan in an operation led by Jordanian authorities and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US government sources said. Initial public confirmation of Suleiman Abu Ghaith's capture came from Representative Peter King, a senior Republican member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee and former chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. On Thursday, King called the arrest a "very significant victory" in the ongoing fight against al-Qaeda. King said the capture was confirmed to him by US law enforcement officials. The sources said Ghaith took part in the September 11, 2001, attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon and had initially been picked up in Turkey. The Turkish government then deported him to Jordan, said the sources, where local authorities and the FBI took custody of him. Source | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 08 2013 06:29 Velr wrote: Most non americans probably just see the pure stupidity to not just let them "veto", instead they have to put up some show so the media can go all batshit over it... If you can't play the crowd, you will never win the crown. That simple. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
It's so much nicer when everyone works together! | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10960 Posts
On March 08 2013 06:40 Kimaker wrote: If you can't play the crowd, you will never win the crown. That simple. Yeah, in reality TV that is. | ||
| ||
