|
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 September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress. You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not.
That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation. Which, for the record, I'm disappointed in Bernie for doing as well. I get it, I might even do the same if I were in their position, but I like to hold my public officials to a slightly higher standard than I do some guy/gal just trying to make a living. Politician is on my list of jobs I couldn't do because my standards for them are higher than I could meet. Though between police, lawyers, and politicians, I'm starting to think I'm more lonely in that position than I would have presumed.
|
On September 29 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
it was close enough that warren mightve pushed bernie over the edge. but i dont think that would have meant anything except maybe a couple delegates. I could dig up the posts but I think we remember how that it was interpreted by Hillary supporters and the implications they drew from it. Every Hillary supporter thinks they are the one she's not lying to, question is, do you really think she's lying to the Wall st folks who paid her millions and expect her to keep the status quo or the plebs that think she's going to change it for them?
this wall street is evil schtick is getting really old.
|
On September 29 2016 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:48 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver. I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not. That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation.
Find it comical that you hold job security against her when Bernie might have had one of the safest seats in the Senate. The man was never getting voted out and he knew it. Its easy to log protest votes and public protests when you don’t have to worry about accomplishing anything. Warren took that seat from a Republican.
|
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides.
|
On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides.
We will likely see this bill come before the Supreme Court imo, it presents a substantial question relative to the legislature's ability to impinge on the executive's foreign policy powers.
|
On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides.
I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong.
|
On September 29 2016 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm the last person you need to tell that to. We've got Kshama up here kicking ass and taking names, by no coincidence, not a member of the Democratic party. Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not. That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation. Find it comical that you hold job security against her when Bernie might have had one of the safest seats in the Senate. The man was never getting voted out and he knew it. Its easy to log protest votes and public protests when you don’t have to worry about accomplishing anything. Warren took that seat from a Republican.
It was Ted Kennedy's old seat. It was only competitive because he died and the nation was in a flurry over Obamacare. When you're running against a guy who based his last campaign on the fact that he drove a truck its not that hard to win it back.
|
On September 29 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
it was close enough that warren mightve pushed bernie over the edge. but i dont think that would have meant anything except maybe a couple delegates. I could dig up the posts but I think we remember how that it was interpreted by Hillary supporters and the implications they drew from it. Every Hillary supporter thinks they are the one she's not lying to, question is, do you really think she's lying to the Wall st folks who paid her millions and expect her to keep the status quo or the plebs that think she's going to change it for them? this wall street is evil schtick is getting really old.
I for one don't think Wall st is "evil".
I'm of the opinion that they are just addicted and need an intervention. Clinton and Republicans are just enablers, even if I concede she's doing it with the best intentions.
|
On September 29 2016 05:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:43 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not. That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation. Find it comical that you hold job security against her when Bernie might have had one of the safest seats in the Senate. The man was never getting voted out and he knew it. Its easy to log protest votes and public protests when you don’t have to worry about accomplishing anything. Warren took that seat from a Republican. It was Ted Kennedy's old seat. It was only competitive because he died and the nation was in a flurry over Obamacare. When you're running against a guy who based his last campaign on the fact that he drove a truck its not that hard to win it back.
It was only competitive because the dem nominee was possibly the worst Senate candidate of all time
|
On September 29 2016 05:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:43 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Apparently I do, because I have Warren in my state. Out of the two options for the Oval office, there is only one of them that is going to work with her, so my vote is clear. Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not. That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation. Find it comical that you hold job security against her when Bernie might have had one of the safest seats in the Senate. The man was never getting voted out and he knew it. Its easy to log protest votes and public protests when you don’t have to worry about accomplishing anything. Warren took that seat from a Republican. It was Ted Kennedy's old seat. It was only competitive because he died and the nation was in a flurry over Obamacare. When you're running against a guy who based his last campaign on the fact that he drove a truck its not that hard to win it back.
I live in this state. We have a Republican governor right now. Scott Brown getting elected had nothing to do with Obamacare, it had everything to do with the Dems running Martha Coakley for the office and her being terrible. Scott Brown lost because Warren was a better candidate hands down and stood for something. But she is not untouchable.
On September 29 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:46 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Warren got played, there's a reason she's already had to beg Hillary not to hire Wall st directly into her administration, naturally, Hillary blew it off. Part of politics is not getting everything you want. Warren knows that. What would you prefer she do after Clinton a choice she did not agree with? Endorse Bernie before the primary in her state ensuring he wins and changes the "he can't win" narrative at a critical point. But what if she didn’t believe he could win or agree with his policies? Or believe she could get what she wants with Bernie in office? Or she has worked with him and did not think he was a very good senator? Also, if you think Warren can stop Clinton from winning MA in the primary you are living in dream land. Well I suppose there's no sense in rehashing it since we disagree and there's no way to verify who would be right. Honestly what bugs me is this "cover for Clinton" is going to end up being how she hides emboldening the wealth disparity in the country by hiding it under a short term boom that will happen when they give corporate tax cheats a pass. That Warren didn't stand up to her when she had the chance lost her a lot of credibility in my view. She is not up for election this year and she needs Clinton to continue what she is doing in the Senate. Endorsing Bernie does nothing and burns a lot of people in this state. You might like Bernie, but many of the professional women in this state love Clinton, specifically attorneys and legal professionals. Women were not allowed to wear pants in court until Clinton came along and make the pants suit the standard for women. That was less than 10 years ago. Professional middle class women huge demographic for Warren. The folks who are Bernie or bust are not. That's actually worse in a lot of ways imo but if she had endorsed her before the primary I might think it sincere and not a job security calculation. Find it comical that you hold job security against her when Bernie might have had one of the safest seats in the Senate. The man was never getting voted out and he knew it. Its easy to log protest votes and public protests when you don’t have to worry about accomplishing anything. Warren took that seat from a Republican. It was Ted Kennedy's old seat. It was only competitive because he died and the nation was in a flurry over Obamacare. When you're running against a guy who based his last campaign on the fact that he drove a truck its not that hard to win it back. It was only competitive because the dem nominee was possibly the worst Senate candidate of all time
She said she didn’t understand why candidates shake hands outside Fenway park and never even visited the western part of the state. I am in awe she still lives here after that.
|
On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong.
While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US.
|
On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US.
Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
|
On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
How exactly does a legislative act that creates an in rem cause of action against Saudi Arabia going to do all this magic accountability work? It's not even clear that the courts will actually honor the statute as written.
|
On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
You think China and Russia are super-powers that arn't accountable?
|
On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
Our courts have no power over other sovereign nations. Our courts only have power over you because you are a citizen of this country. They can only enforce their will on foreign nationals if the other nation lets them. You can’t bring a case against a Chinese company that doesn’t have holding in this country. When one nation wants to enforce its will on another, it’s called war or tariffs or any other internationals action.
|
Sovereign immunity is incredibly important and attempting to overturn it is either costly at best or dangerous at worst.
The entire bill is quite frankly stupid. But politics.
|
On September 29 2016 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. Our courts have no power over other sovereign nations. Our courts only have power over you because you are a citizen of this country. They can only enforce their will on foreign nationals if the other nation lets them. You can’t bring a case against a Chinese company that doesn’t have holding in this country. When one nation wants to enforce its will on another, it’s called war or tariffs or any other internationals action.
On September 29 2016 05:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. How exactly does a legislative act that creates an in rem cause of action against Saudi Arabia going to do all this magic accountability work? It's not even clear that the courts will actually honor the statute as written.
So where's the harm, though? The conversation shifting towards "Fuck Saudi Arabia for pulling a bunch of bullshit around the world" still sounds great to me. Public pressure is, in itself, powerful. Saudi Arabia currently gives 0 shits about what me or my entire country thinks of it. Saudi Arabia is our ally for reasons that have nothing to do with the nobility of their government. Saudi Arabia suddenly needing to have an ounce of decency sounds great to me.
Basically same response to both of you, so just tossing in both at once.
|
On September 29 2016 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:54 farvacola wrote:On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. How exactly does a legislative act that creates an in rem cause of action against Saudi Arabia going to do all this magic accountability work? It's not even clear that the courts will actually honor the statute as written. So where's the harm, though? The conversation shifting towards "Fuck Saudi Arabia for pulling a bunch of bullshit around the world" still sounds great to me. Public pressure is, in itself, powerful. Saudi Arabia currently gives 0 shits about what me or my entire country thinks of it. Saudi Arabia is our ally for reasons that have nothing to do with the nobility of their government. Saudi Arabia suddenly needing to have an ounce of decency sounds great to me.
Because it’s a law that now must be thrown out by the court and might cause people to get up their hopes if being able to sue for 9/11.
|
On September 29 2016 05:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit. You think China and Russia are super-powers that arn't accountable?
What do you expect to come of this? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37495067
A plane full of people died. The missile was shot at the plane by people Russia supported and armed. There's not just blood on their hands. They are rolling around and playing in a pool of blood. How do you think they'll suffer for it?
On September 29 2016 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:54 farvacola wrote:On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote:On September 29 2016 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 05:43 Nevuk wrote:
Congress overrode Obama's veto on the JASTA bill. It is his first overridden veto. Earnest called it the most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983 (what happened in 83?)
Having read some of the shallow, brief arguments, I do see the point of both sides. I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong. While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US. Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO. How exactly does a legislative act that creates an in rem cause of action against Saudi Arabia going to do all this magic accountability work? It's not even clear that the courts will actually honor the statute as written. So where's the harm, though? The conversation shifting towards "Fuck Saudi Arabia for pulling a bunch of bullshit around the world" still sounds great to me. Public pressure is, in itself, powerful. Saudi Arabia currently gives 0 shits about what me or my entire country thinks of it. Saudi Arabia is our ally for reasons that have nothing to do with the nobility of their government. Saudi Arabia suddenly needing to have an ounce of decency sounds great to me. Because it’s a law that now must be thrown out by the court and might cause people to get up their hopes if being able to sue for 9/11.
So a shift in the public conversation towards holding SA accountable for the spread of Wahhabi bullshit is not worth it because people might get their hopes up? How is that not acceptable? People being bummed is a critical failure? Surely there must be more to it than that for Obama to veto it.
On September 29 2016 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:
It's confusing to me why Trump wants to bring up Bill's infidelity, like it's something he has in his back pocket. I guess he wants to have an infidelity contest with Bill.
Because we live in a world where it somehow reflects poorly on a woman to be cheated on. Sad, disgusting reality.
|
It's confusing to me why Trump wants to bring up Bill's infidelity, like it's something he has in his back pocket. I guess he wants to have an infidelity contest with Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
