US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2380

On October 09 2015 14:38 IgnE wrote:
Why is issuing bonds and spending money on legislated programs supposed to be hard?

On October 09 2015 12:49 cLutZ wrote:[T]he debt ceiling is more likely to be unconstitutional because it makes issuing bonds and spending the money raised too easy, rather than making it too hard.

On October 09 2015 22:03 zf wrote:


So what? They'd argue that if the President were placed in a similar situation under the pre-debt-ceiling regime, the same analysis would apply. Whether the debt ceiling makes it easier or harder to spend is neither here nor there. What matters is that the combination of laws makes it impossible for the President to act constitutionally.

“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” Carson said. “I’m telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.”

Carson also partly blames the horror of the Holocaust on Nazi gun control laws in his latest book, A Perfect Union, but his statements Thursday, along with many others he’s made this week on guns, were swiftly attacked.

According to ABC News, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Carson’s statements were “historically inaccurate.”

“The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state,” said ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt.

On October 09 2015 23:54 JinDesu wrote:
http://time.com/4067501/ben-carson-holocaust-popeyes/



Ben Carson is doing a wonderful job of being a quote machine.

On October 10 2015 00:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm pretty sure an armed population with guns did stop Hitler. Admittedly they were Russians but still, the main thing is that an armed population works.

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Rand Paul is under increasing pressure from Republicans here and in Washington to pull the plug on his stagnant presidential campaign and instead recommit his resources to keeping his Senate seat in GOP hands.

D.C. Republicans think Paul's poll numbers have flat-lined — and operatives worried about retaining control of the Senate are ready for him to start spending a lot more time in Kentucky and a lot less time in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"This presidential dream needs to come to an end," said a national Republican strategist, granted anonymity to discuss Paul's situation candidly. "Senate Republicans can’t afford to have a competitive race in Kentucky."

Paul, however, is showing little sign of giving up. Even with poll numbers so low that he might not appear on the main stage for the third GOP debate and his fundraising slowing to a crawl, Paul has a message for those who say it's time to suspend his run for the White House and focus on his Senate reelection: I can handle both.

Paul arrived at a recent campaign event here for GOP gubernatorial nominee to a uniformly positive and presidential-focused reception. The approximately 60 people who trudged to the basement of a Baptist ministry across the street from Kentucky State University welcomed Paul with chants of "President Paul! President Paul!" Many attendees wore T-shirts and signs emblazoned with Paul's torch-like presidential campaign logo.

Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) introduced Paul as "our candidate for president of the United States." GOP gubernatorial nominee Matt Bevin said the first-term senator "would be an extraordinary president of the United States."

"Who would say such a thing? Rebuke them!" Paul sarcastically told reporters after the event who asked about suggestions that he drop out and focus on his Senate reelection. "They don't know anything about politics. They all write for a living."

Asked directly if he was worried about his Senate seat, Paul was blunt: "No."

On October 10 2015 01:08 Slaughter wrote:
That argument that it provides protection against gov abuse justifying gun ownership seems so outdated. What revolution in this day and age would be viable without help from the military (or outside forces shipping in weapons)? Those open carry yokels who walk around with assault rifles in public places would not do jack shit if the US gov actually decided to suppress its people. Being armed or not wouldn't make much of a difference.

On October 10 2015 01:19 Gorsameth wrote:

As Kwark said your talking about a group of people who believed that a Military exercise in Texas was a cover for an occupation by the US military of a US state.
A group of people who somehow have enough weight behind them to get the Governor to ask the National Guard to monitor the Military.

On October 10 2015 01:23 Plansix wrote:

So they assigned a guy to call the army and be like "Yo, where you guys at?" and then go hang out? That was nothing by lip service to a small group of people with to much time.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to announce his opposition Friday to President Obama’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, citing questions about Dr. Robert M. Califf’s commitment to lowering pharmaceutical prices.

Sanders, who is mounting a surprisingly strong bid for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Rodham Clinton, told The Washington Post that he spoke by phone last week with Califf and came away unconvinced that he is the right person for the job of commissioner.

“At a time when millions of Americans cannot afford to purchase the prescription drugs they need, we need a new leader at the FDA who is prepared to stand up to the pharmaceutical companies and work to substantially lower drug prices,” Sanders said in a statement. “Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Califf is not that person.”

Califf, a prominent cardiologist and longtime researcher at Duke University, joined the FDA earlier this year as a deputy commissioner. When Obama announced his nomination for the top post, Califf drew praise from some health groups, but his close ties to the pharmaceutical industry have been a source of controversy.

A 2014 financial disclosure showed Califf’s salary at Duke was underwritten partly by funding from large drug makers such as Eli Lilly, Novartis and Merck. He also reported receiving fees from a range of other pharmaceutical companies, which a government spokesman said were donated to charities.