US Politics Mega-thread - Page 416

On September 07 2013 05:02 RCMDVA wrote:


So TV time for Syria is officially less important than

* Saturday college football (ND vs Michigan) or the NASCAR race in Richmond
* Sunday NFL
* Monday night NFL

So we get to hear about Syria on Tuesday

The administration has no discernible strategy. A small, limited strike will look merely symbolic, a face-saving measure. A strong, broad strike opens the possibility that the civil war will end in victory for those as bad as or worse than Assad. And time has already passed. Assad has had a chance to plan his response, and do us the kind of damage to which we would have to respond.

There is the issue of U.S. credibility. We speak of this constantly and in public, which has the effect of reducing its power. If we bomb Syria, will the world say, "Oh, how credible America is!" or will they say, "They just bombed people because they think they have to prove they're credible"?

On September 08 2013 09:14 xDaunt wrote:

Clearly TV time on Syria is less important than all of those things. If Syria really mattered that much, Obama wouldn't be tripping over himself at the last minute to gather political support to do something about it. Instead, he would have diligently laid out a case for intervention well-over a year ago. It is comical how poorly he has handled the situation.

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency this week quietly withdrew two draft rules dealing with the regulation of chemicals. The potential rules were in limbo at the Office of Management for several years.

One of the rules was a proposal to add Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical included in many water bottles and other plastic products that has been linked to a number of potential health concerns, to the list of "chemicals of concern" that would be subject to more scrutiny. The EPA also proposed listing eight different types of phthalates, another group of chemicals often used in plastic products, and several types of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

The EPA first submitted the proposal to OMB in May 2010, stating that the agency was "concerned that the hazards of these substances and the magnitude of human and/or environmental exposure indicates that they may present an unreasonable risk to human health and/or the environment." The Toxic Substances Control Act allows the EPA to flag chemicals of concern for further analysis. That rule had been at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the division of OMB that is supposed to review agency rules, for more than three years. OIRA is supposed to take a maximum of 90 days to review agency rules.

A second rule that EPA withdrew would have forced companies to disclose to the public the chemicals used in products and the health and safety studies the companies have conducted on those chemicals -- much of which companies have been allowed to protect as "confidential business information." That rule had been at OMB since 2011.

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, noted that the EPA had withdrawn the two rules in a blog post on Friday afternoon. In an email statement to The Huffington Post, an EPA spokesman said that the rules were being withdrawn because "they are no longer necessary." The agency pointed to separate work it has since undertaken to evaluate chemical safety, and to other efforts it has made to increase transparency about chemicals. The agency noted a concern that limiting the amount of information that companies can protect as confidential business information "may result in fewer submissions of these important studies."

On September 08 2013 11:33 Sermokala wrote:

Its the same exact way that he handled the sandy hook situation. not really a surprise that it was yet another failure.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that he won't filibuster a vote on use of force against Syria, but he will fight to ensure President Barack Obama cannot act without congressional approval.

"I will insist on at least one vote where we try to say, hey, this is not political show," Paul said on "Fox News Sunday." "This is not constitutional theater, this is a binding vote."

It remains unclear whether there are enough votes in Congress to authorize strikes on Syria, a move both chambers will discuss this week when they return from the August recess. Obama announced last week that he would turn to Congress for a vote, but hasn't ruled out acting even if members vote against his plan.

Paul said he will introduce an amendment that prohibits the president from doing so.

"I will insist there is full debate on this and I will insist that I get an amendment and my amendment will say the vote is binding," he said. "That the president cannot, if we vote him down, decide to go to war anyway."

Paul said last week that he would not filibuster a Syria vote, and made the same point on Sunday.

On September 09 2013 04:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The thing is that if Obama ignored Congress, that is if they vote No on Syria, and he proceeds anyways to attack. The very few GOP who are calling for impeachment could find louder more numerous voices.




Source

On September 09 2013 04:27 sam!zdat wrote:
doesn't obama's putting the question to congress clearly show that he hopes they will say no?

On September 09 2013 04:27 sam!zdat wrote:
doesn't obama's putting the question to congress clearly show that he hopes they will say no?

In the five weeks since he declared his support for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster has gotten an earful.

One constituent told the second-term Republican that immigrants carry disease. Another said immigrants would steal jobs away from Americans.

"You cannot stop illegal immigration by rewarding it," another man said at a recent town hall-style meeting in Groveland, a rural community west of Orlando. "Amnesty is a reward."

As Congress returns to work this week after its summer break, Webster faces perhaps an even tougher crowd: fellow Republicans.

Webster is among about two dozen GOP lawmakers who support an eventual path to citizenship for millions of people who are living in the U.S. illegally. These Republicans are facing the daunting challenge of trying to persuade colleagues to follow them.

Most Republicans oppose this approach on citizenship, and there is little political incentive for them to change their minds. Only 24 of 233 Republicans represent districts where more than one-quarter of their constituents are Hispanic.

Even so, some in the Republican Party argue that its future hinges on whether the House finds a way to embrace an immigration overhaul, which is a crucial issue for the country's fast-growing bloc of Hispanic voters.

On September 09 2013 12:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If a president loses a vote to attack country X and attacks it anyway he should be impeached I don't care who he is or what party he's from. Going ahead anyway technically might not violate the letter of the Constitution but it would be a huge assault on the spirit of the Constitution. It would be the kind of thing historians would look a hundred years from now and say, "that was a huge victory for the power of the executive and a weakening of the Congress" we don't need the presidency getting any more powerful than it is especially at the expense of the Congress.

On September 10 2013 02:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wouldn't it be ironic if Putin saves Obama a political nightmare. Or maybe that Putin has just seen very compelling evidence. Either way.any port in a storm.

On September 10 2013 02:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wouldn't it be ironic if Putin saves Obama a political nightmare. Or maybe that Putin has just seen very compelling evidence. Either way.any port in a storm.