|
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. |
On June 06 2013 06:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Could have been worse. In a speech made to a gathering of Texas Republicans last month, tea party activist Ken Emanuelson claimed that the GOP does not want black people to vote unless they do so for Republican candidates, according to the Houston Chronicle.
“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Emanuelson said at a May 20 "Battlefield Dallas" event in Dallas.
Emanuelson later backtracked in a note posted to his Facebook page, claiming he "misspoke."
"What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party," he wrote on Tuesday.
Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democratic freshman whose district includes parts of Dallas County, responded to Emanuelson's comment in an email sent today to Battleground Texas supporters.
“Together, we can turn this cowardly attack into the catalyst that makes our movement stronger,” Veasey said, according to the Chronicle. “Battlefield Dallas and its tea party ilk have shown their true colors and now it’s time to hold them accountable.” Source Yea, I guess he could have said that Republicans just don't want blacks in the party. That would have been worse...
It was a partisan comment, not a racist one. Note the qualifier. Not as if that is any better, but if the GOP tries to stick to their old theocratic/Neo-con ways they're surely a dead party and I say good riddance. That'll provide a void for a more libertarian party to come in.
|
A very interesting piece with regards to the "who tends to obstruct more?" debate.
Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an “Index of Obstruction and Delay” designed to measure levels of obstructionism. In research that will be released in a July article he co-authored for Judicature Journal, he has calculated that the level of obstruction of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented.
Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.
“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.”
Source
|
On June 06 2013 07:26 kwizach wrote:A very interesting piece with regards to the "who tends to obstruct more?" debate. Show nested quote +Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an “Index of Obstruction and Delay” designed to measure levels of obstructionism. In research that will be released in a July article he co-authored for Judicature Journal, he has calculated that the level of obstruction of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented.
Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.
“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.” Source
I thought this was common knowledge not needing wierd math and equalistion.
It was so bad that the judges themselves had to warn congress they couldnt do there job.
|
On June 06 2013 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 07:26 kwizach wrote:A very interesting piece with regards to the "who tends to obstruct more?" debate. Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an “Index of Obstruction and Delay” designed to measure levels of obstructionism. In research that will be released in a July article he co-authored for Judicature Journal, he has calculated that the level of obstruction of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented.
Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.
“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.” Source I thought this was common knowledge not needing wierd math and equalistion. It was so bad that the judges themselves had to warn congress they couldnt do there job.
Well, the common counter-claim was that Democrats did it just as much. This is obviously bullshit, but with no quantifiable measure, you couldn't point out the amount of bullshit.
|
I would point out that there seems to be a tit for tat game going here. Democrats blocked Bush more than Republicans blocked Clinton, and now Republicans have blocked Obama more than Democrats blocked Bush. The alarming thing is that it will probably continue to get worse and Democrats will completely obstruct the next Republican president and tell themselves they're doing the right thing because the GOP did it too.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions)
|
On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions)
Is it internal division tho or is it an unwillingness to obstruct at any cost?
Im no expert on US politics but to me it seems like a lot of Dem plans get shut down because there from Dems and not because the Republics disagree with there premise.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 06 2013 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) Is it internal division tho or is it an unwillingness to obstruct at any cost? Im no expert on US politics but to me it seems like a lot of Dem plans get shut down because there from Dems and not because the Republics disagree with there premise.
if the stakes get high enough there's willingness. see bork.
but the kinds of issues that can get democrats up to that level of uniformity is rare, they are more of a big tent party than republicans, which has ideological base.
a lazy analysis blaming retaliation would cast false equivalence and show nothing of the mechanism of polarization at work.
|
On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions)
Why would they stall when the GOP gives the Democrats what they want for the most part anyways? Medicare Part D? More wars and power? Why would they obstruct those things? They never have (well, not since Grover Cleveland anyways), and certainly aren't tilting in that direction either.
Besides, the GOP in the Senate hardly 'obstructs'. It are the principled folk in the House (The peoples Chamber) who represent their constituencies. You are right. It is increasing polarization between different views of the power of Government. It'll either end like it did in the 1860s, or the 1990s USSR. Let us go peacefully.
I've finally started to hear Progressives echo the same sentiment. Why continue to hold together factions who want nothing to do with each other, and are in their own eyes, merely holding back their visions of society? Let NY break from DC. Let NH break from DC, and let SC break from DC. That way each faction can follow their own wishes (Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative/Neo-Con).
|
On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions)
We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton.
Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled.
Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
to the right, the world is of course always sliding left. pretty standard.
|
On the topic of the current identity of the Republican party and where it's going, I wanted to add one that's somewhat of a current event. The Tea Party Wing of the Republican Party was recently discovered to have been profiled by people very politically partisan in the government structure with the authority to direct investigations and intrusive questioning their way. A few were invited before the Ways and Means Committee to give their testimony, and were quite well-spoken on the topics. I recommend watching the videos; I have transcribed some excepts.
+ Show Spoiler [videos] +
Excepts:
This dialogue is about the jackboot of tyranny on the field of our founding documents. To whisper the letters I.R.S. strikes a shrill note on Main Street USA. But when this behemoth tramples upon America’s grassroots, few hear the snapping sounds.
I was asked to hand over my donor lists, including the amounts that they gave and the dates on which they gave them. 501(c)(4) organizations do not have to disclose donor information. I knew that, why don't they? Among the demands I found alarming and inappropriate were: They wanted me to identify all my volunteers. They wanted to know if any of our donors or volunteers had run or would be running for office in the near future. They wanted us to identify the office they would be running for...
Government agents made invasive and excessive demands for information that they were not entitled to. Congressman Camp and members of this committee: This was not an accident, this is a willful act of intimidation to discourage a point of view. What the government did to our little group in Wetumpka, Alabama, is unamerican. It isn't a matter of firing or arresting individuals. The individuals who sought to intimidate us were acting as they thought they should in a government culture that has little respect for its citizens. Many of the agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. They think they are our masters and they are mistaken. I'm not interested in scoring political points. I want to protect and preserve the America that I grew up in ...
There are those within the Republican party that wish a return to a very tightly restricted government, and not a very tightly regulated society. Basic freedoms restored, and the unelected government agencies pruned back. The clashes between the religious right and those wanting civil unions named marriage will continue, and vary from state to state. I find that there is large opposition to Bush-era neoconservative high-spending government, but not within the current breed of elected Republicans. Sufficient compromise was found to elect Bush, and some support was rallied for a compromise candidate Romney. But those candidates like Herman Cain and recent statesmen like Ben Carlson rally the conservative base and remind conservative Republicans like myself that the Republican party has drifted towards the left and there is still sufficient numbers to push out candidates like Ted Cruz within the existing GOP. Fiscal conservatism first, and the range of social issues behind it. To borrow a phrase from Obama, a fundamental transformation of the tax system and tax law in the wake of the reminder that unaccountable bureaucrats exercise great control. Either of the current calls to a fair tax or flat tax is preferable to the Byzantine monstrosity that is the current tax system.
|
On June 06 2013 10:09 oneofthem wrote:
to the right, the world is of course always sliding left. pretty standard.
I feel like generally that is the feel for most any person. For the old its that the young are reckless and lack X factor of the old days etc. In politics though, I really wonder whether or not the general trend of people switching to more leftist standpoints will last. Once Obama leaves office, it will be interesting to see how much we increase what would now be the Great Society + Obamacare and how much we will try to minimize it all.
|
On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics.
It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point.
As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless.
|
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency is collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon Communications customers under a secret court order issued in April, according to a story on the Guardian website.
Citing a copy of the court order, which the Guardian said it had obtained, the report said Verizon is required on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA data on all phone calls in network within the United States and between the United States and other countries.
The National Security Agency told Reuters it had no immediate comment and Verizon spokesman Ed McFadden declined to comment.
The Guardian said the White House and the Department of Justice declined to comment for its story.
According to the story, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the U.S. government unlimited authority to access the data for a three-month period ending on July 19.
The data Verizon is required to provide includes the numbers of both sides of a call along with location data, call duration and the time of the call but the contents of the conversation are not covered, according to the story.
Source
|
On June 06 2013 07:19 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 06:55 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Could have been worse. In a speech made to a gathering of Texas Republicans last month, tea party activist Ken Emanuelson claimed that the GOP does not want black people to vote unless they do so for Republican candidates, according to the Houston Chronicle.
“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Emanuelson said at a May 20 "Battlefield Dallas" event in Dallas.
Emanuelson later backtracked in a note posted to his Facebook page, claiming he "misspoke."
"What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party," he wrote on Tuesday.
Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democratic freshman whose district includes parts of Dallas County, responded to Emanuelson's comment in an email sent today to Battleground Texas supporters.
“Together, we can turn this cowardly attack into the catalyst that makes our movement stronger,” Veasey said, according to the Chronicle. “Battlefield Dallas and its tea party ilk have shown their true colors and now it’s time to hold them accountable.” Source Yea, I guess he could have said that Republicans just don't want blacks in the party. That would have been worse... It was a partisan comment, not a racist one. Note the qualifier. Not as if that is any better, but if the GOP tries to stick to their old theocratic/Neo-con ways they're surely a dead party and I say good riddance. That'll provide a void for a more libertarian party to come in.
Unfortunately only those RINO's can get elected president in this country. Romney was from a pretty liberal state.
|
On June 06 2013 11:32 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics. It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point. As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless.
Nah, you're just trying to play the victim, as most partisans do in arguments about judicial nominations. Bush just made bad nominations so it was fine that Democrats filibustered him, but when Obama's nominations are held up, obviously the Republican Party has gone crazy with the filibuster.
Certainly it's no secret that Republicans targeted Obama nominees for filibuster from the get-go, even qualified ones with which they don't have any serious political problems. But it's wildly biased to say Democrats have clean hands and have only obstructed unqualified, extremist judicial picks.
But like I said, we won't know how the pattern works until we get our next Republican president.
EDIT: I will make a separate point that Republicans have actually used the filibuster very few times. They threaten to use it a lot, however, and Obama has backed off when Democrats do the math and don't think they can get the votes. Senate Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's nominees, ultimately defeating five. So far, Senate Republicans have filibustered 3 of Obama's nominees, defeating 2 (including 1 that is still pending).
|
On June 06 2013 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency is collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon Communications customers under a secret court order issued in April, according to a story on the Guardian website.
Citing a copy of the court order, which the Guardian said it had obtained, the report said Verizon is required on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA data on all phone calls in network within the United States and between the United States and other countries.
The National Security Agency told Reuters it had no immediate comment and Verizon spokesman Ed McFadden declined to comment.
The Guardian said the White House and the Department of Justice declined to comment for its story.
According to the story, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the U.S. government unlimited authority to access the data for a three-month period ending on July 19.
The data Verizon is required to provide includes the numbers of both sides of a call along with location data, call duration and the time of the call but the contents of the conversation are not covered, according to the story. Source
This is potentially a huge story. I'm eager to hear more.
Worst case scenario: The NSA has, against its own charter, been surveiling US citizens without their knowledge or consent and without probable cause, and this is only one order of many, including orders for electronic communications like e-mail and texts. And Verizon has been giving them records prospectively, which would be a tap.
But I will hasten to point out that we need more details. We don't know what the government is looking at or why.
|
On June 06 2013 23:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency is collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon Communications customers under a secret court order issued in April, according to a story on the Guardian website.
Citing a copy of the court order, which the Guardian said it had obtained, the report said Verizon is required on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA data on all phone calls in network within the United States and between the United States and other countries.
The National Security Agency told Reuters it had no immediate comment and Verizon spokesman Ed McFadden declined to comment.
The Guardian said the White House and the Department of Justice declined to comment for its story.
According to the story, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the U.S. government unlimited authority to access the data for a three-month period ending on July 19.
The data Verizon is required to provide includes the numbers of both sides of a call along with location data, call duration and the time of the call but the contents of the conversation are not covered, according to the story. Source This is potentially a huge story. I'm eager to hear more. Worst case scenario: The NSA has, against its own charter, been surveiling US citizens without their knowledge or consent and without probable cause, and this is only one order of many, including orders for electronic communications like e-mail and texts. And Verizon has been giving them records prospectively, which would be a tap. But I will hasten to point out that we need more details. We don't know what the government is looking at or why.
I'm not sure it's wiretapping if the contents of the call aren't covered and all you get is numbers, location, call duration, and time of call. You're right to say it all depends on the why. The fact that a FISA court authorized it makes it seem unlikely to me to be constant surveillance (unless they've degenerated since the Bush administration, I suppose).
|
It seems Congress wants answers to a law they passed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
