I imagine that the US could put a lot of pressure on the EU pretty easily with the amount of economic ties the two regions have together. Not to mention that I doubt the Europeans are all that upset about expanding their own security states as this is a convenient excuse for both to do so.
You fall under the "we don't give a shit because he doesn't vote and never will" category. The most useful information they can acquire is the little bit that tells them if you're for my guy, and I can get you to show up to vote. Past that, it doesn't matter all that much.
*sigh* The deficit is caused primarily by two things: The lower tax receipts from the huge destruction of wealth during the 2008 crash. The increased spending in the social safety net that automatically kicks in during such downturns. Long term out deficit is a product of bad demographics and health costs.
So no, the Government isn't a family, it doesn't tighten it's belt. It's an insurance company for old people with an army, and it sets its own wage.
To vote for it out of committee is ostensibly a vote for it, in the same way that in the Senate a vote for cloture can be used as a vote for it. The point for the politician is that it's just true enough for attack ads to be run on the subject. It's unfortunate that our politics aren't allowed the nuance they so deserve, but that's they way it is.
No, it won't ever leave committee. No one who has to run for reelection wants to be seen as soft on crime and drugs and that's EXACTLY what they'll be seen as if they vote for this thing to move it out of committee. Paul and Frank run in districts at the far right and left of the US political spectrum and can get away with this sort of thing, most of the rest of congress does not.
The only way I see Legalization coming about is the following scenario: California eventually does it, followed soon by Oregon and Washington seeking more desperately needed revenues. Then, in response to this, the more conservative states in the deep south try to push back against it, with some success at first, but then their gross need for revenues begins to outweigh the social factors, and it's done. That's when you'll see it taken up, or at least defacto, at the federal level. It's also not a question of "if" but "when" once California legalized it for medicinal use, the foot was in the door.
Think about it: Physical media (hard drives/flash) is cheap, consumers have been using it for years, data on phones is getting shittier, caps are becoming more common, and the internet and electricity never go out. WE SHOULD CHARGE PEOPLE TO HOLD ON TO THEIR MUSIC!
You're half right. The executive branch has to interpret the law, because they're the ones executing it. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate rule making authority to parts of the executive branch (like how the EPA can set emission levels). The whole reason White House council and the Justice Department exist is to interpret the law.
You get a 30 day withdrawal period, that in effect gives you 90 days. His legal analysis and the analysis of not all but some in the Justice Department is that NATO operations in Libya, to the extent we're involved, don't constitute hostilities. The law is not clear on what "hostilities" are. For all your argument otherwise, this is gospel unless the Supreme Court rules it otherwise, or Congress modifies the War Powers Act. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying this isn't exactly settled law. The kicker will be if drone attacks constitute hostilities, and that's not as clear cut as you would think. Consider that we've been using drones in Yemen for years now without any sort of the fuss this is causing, and the administration can easily make the case that this kind of mission is similar. Ghadaffi is wanted for war crimes and basically the whole world considers him a pariah, he was responsible for actual terrorist attacks against US citizens and is generally perceived as illegitimate. Those views and facts to me constitute a plausible, if not rock solid, case that the use of drone strikes on select targets and logistical support for the other countries involved in the NATO mission as not necessarily "hostile" as defined by the War Powers Act. Yes it's unilateral on the part of the President but until the Supreme Court puts a check on this, years down the line, the President is within his rights as the Commander-in-Chief to interpret the law as such.
That's not me trying to confuse the facts, that's me trying to put them into context of reality.
You actually have 90 days, and it isn't quite up yet and the Administration maintains that because no American troops or aircraft are actively and currently attacking Libyan forces (as I understand it we're in more of a support/logistics role) they don't need Congressional approval. It's not illegal, not yet anyway, and I doubt the Supreme Court would disagree with the administration.
I agree with you for the most parts but the deficit is primarily a product of the Bush tax cuts, and not the wars. They're part of it, but the lowered tax revenues from the recession are bigger than the wars.
That is to say, You the caller, not You the party. People don't vote one way or another based on robocalls, the point is they're ineffective at anything.
The DNC is doing fine, they're raising more money than ever. Sure, those statements are going to be tough but they can be worked around, especially considering that elections are between two candidates, and it's easy to hit a guy when there isn't anyone running against him.
First: Gitmo nobody cares about except progressives and they'll pull the lever once they see who is running against him. The Iraq war is as good as over since we're not taking casualties. The stimulus will be a problem in that it wasn't big enough for the job, but in the face of a Republican whose solution will be to lower taxes for the only people that aren't suffering, he'll do fine. Health care reform is popular on the merits and repeal isn't as popular as it was in 2010, so much so that allowing the law to work or strengthen it is the plurality position.
Second: Libya doesn't involve troops, so Americans hardly care and Republicans will never be the anti war party. The deficit reduction deal that is coming down the pike will be owned by both parties and the Republican candidate won't be able to hit Obama hard on it since his party went along with it anyway, and when you get into specifics almost every cut is unpopular. A worsening of employment would be bad, but all the President has to do is put out some proposals for the Republicans to block and keep things from getting worse than they have been recently (most of the public still assigns Bush blame for the economic collapse). Americans don't care what foreigners think. Immigration enforcement has been stepped up during Obama's term, with deportations up, the fence almost done, and more guards on the border. All he needs to do is emphasize some small immigration reform and he can increase turnout among latinos. Your last point makes no sense.
In short, Obama is not Carter, or Clinton, or Reagan, or anyone but Obama. He got Osama, he's got cred on foreign policy now and Americans broadly like the man, even if they don't care for the direction of the country.
It's pretty common, especially now, but the way they went about it was just stupid. At best a negative robocall campaign is worth maybe a tenth of a percent at the margins, probably less. TV ads, mailers, and actual calls are so much more effective in shaping the electorate. What these guys did was just dumb.
There are also better ways to suppress voter turnout than confusing robocalls and they don't even get you indicted. For starters, running a hard negative campaign and hoping it rains are probably the best way for a Republican to affect turnout in their favor. These days your campaign doesn't even have to be the ones doing the mudslinging, you can just publish your opposition research and let the 501c(4)s take care of the rest with no need to reveal doners or do anything but do dirty things to the other guy.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that the US could put a lot of pressure on the EU pretty easily with the amount of economic ties the two regions have together. Not to mention that I doubt the Europeans are all that upset about expanding their own security states as this is a convenient excuse for both to do so.
Unless you pay no State or Federal taxes, you're quite wrong about that.
You fall under the "we don't give a shit because he doesn't vote and never will" category. The most useful information they can acquire is the little bit that tells them if you're for my guy, and I can get you to show up to vote. Past that, it doesn't matter all that much.
*sigh* The deficit is caused primarily by two things: The lower tax receipts from the huge destruction of wealth during the 2008 crash. The increased spending in the social safety net that automatically kicks in during such downturns. Long term out deficit is a product of bad demographics and health costs.
So no, the Government isn't a family, it doesn't tighten it's belt. It's an insurance company for old people with an army, and it sets its own wage.
Don't want it to be inflationary? Just sell off the debt the FED bought during Quantitative Easing.
But it's about time.
The correct answer is to not run a counter-attack ad because it legitimizes the argument and gets more play in the media.
To vote for it out of committee is ostensibly a vote for it, in the same way that in the Senate a vote for cloture can be used as a vote for it. The point for the politician is that it's just true enough for attack ads to be run on the subject. It's unfortunate that our politics aren't allowed the nuance they so deserve, but that's they way it is.
No, it won't ever leave committee. No one who has to run for reelection wants to be seen as soft on crime and drugs and that's EXACTLY what they'll be seen as if they vote for this thing to move it out of committee. Paul and Frank run in districts at the far right and left of the US political spectrum and can get away with this sort of thing, most of the rest of congress does not.
The only way I see Legalization coming about is the following scenario: California eventually does it, followed soon by Oregon and Washington seeking more desperately needed revenues. Then, in response to this, the more conservative states in the deep south try to push back against it, with some success at first, but then their gross need for revenues begins to outweigh the social factors, and it's done. That's when you'll see it taken up, or at least defacto, at the federal level. It's also not a question of "if" but "when" once California legalized it for medicinal use, the foot was in the door.
This one will die before it leaves committee.
Yes but for only $3.99 a month they could own your music!
Think about it: Physical media (hard drives/flash) is cheap, consumers have been using it for years, data on phones is getting shittier, caps are becoming more common, and the internet and electricity never go out. WE SHOULD CHARGE PEOPLE TO HOLD ON TO THEIR MUSIC!
You included my direct quotes to tear down arguments that I didn't make and have nothing to do with what I said. Pretty sure that's a straw man.
You're half right. The executive branch has to interpret the law, because they're the ones executing it. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate rule making authority to parts of the executive branch (like how the EPA can set emission levels). The whole reason White House council and the Justice Department exist is to interpret the law.
You get a 30 day withdrawal period, that in effect gives you 90 days. His legal analysis and the analysis of not all but some in the Justice Department is that NATO operations in Libya, to the extent we're involved, don't constitute hostilities. The law is not clear on what "hostilities" are. For all your argument otherwise, this is gospel unless the Supreme Court rules it otherwise, or Congress modifies the War Powers Act. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying this isn't exactly settled law. The kicker will be if drone attacks constitute hostilities, and that's not as clear cut as you would think. Consider that we've been using drones in Yemen for years now without any sort of the fuss this is causing, and the administration can easily make the case that this kind of mission is similar. Ghadaffi is wanted for war crimes and basically the whole world considers him a pariah, he was responsible for actual terrorist attacks against US citizens and is generally perceived as illegitimate. Those views and facts to me constitute a plausible, if not rock solid, case that the use of drone strikes on select targets and logistical support for the other countries involved in the NATO mission as not necessarily "hostile" as defined by the War Powers Act. Yes it's unilateral on the part of the President but until the Supreme Court puts a check on this, years down the line, the President is within his rights as the Commander-in-Chief to interpret the law as such.
That's not me trying to confuse the facts, that's me trying to put them into context of reality.
Wow, I've never been made a straw man before.
Yes, but you have to run the disclaimer at the end saying who paid for the ad.
You actually have 90 days, and it isn't quite up yet and the Administration maintains that because no American troops or aircraft are actively and currently attacking Libyan forces (as I understand it we're in more of a support/logistics role) they don't need Congressional approval. It's not illegal, not yet anyway, and I doubt the Supreme Court would disagree with the administration.
It's not necessarily bigoted; blacks vote over 90% with Democrats. No other constituency is that aligned with a party.
I agree with you for the most parts but the deficit is primarily a product of the Bush tax cuts, and not the wars. They're part of it, but the lowered tax revenues from the recession are bigger than the wars.
That is to say, You the caller, not You the party. People don't vote one way or another based on robocalls, the point is they're ineffective at anything.
The DNC is doing fine, they're raising more money than ever. Sure, those statements are going to be tough but they can be worked around, especially considering that elections are between two candidates, and it's easy to hit a guy when there isn't anyone running against him.
First: Gitmo nobody cares about except progressives and they'll pull the lever once they see who is running against him. The Iraq war is as good as over since we're not taking casualties. The stimulus will be a problem in that it wasn't big enough for the job, but in the face of a Republican whose solution will be to lower taxes for the only people that aren't suffering, he'll do fine. Health care reform is popular on the merits and repeal isn't as popular as it was in 2010, so much so that allowing the law to work or strengthen it is the plurality position.
Second: Libya doesn't involve troops, so Americans hardly care and Republicans will never be the anti war party. The deficit reduction deal that is coming down the pike will be owned by both parties and the Republican candidate won't be able to hit Obama hard on it since his party went along with it anyway, and when you get into specifics almost every cut is unpopular. A worsening of employment would be bad, but all the President has to do is put out some proposals for the Republicans to block and keep things from getting worse than they have been recently (most of the public still assigns Bush blame for the economic collapse). Americans don't care what foreigners think. Immigration enforcement has been stepped up during Obama's term, with deportations up, the fence almost done, and more guards on the border. All he needs to do is emphasize some small immigration reform and he can increase turnout among latinos. Your last point makes no sense.
In short, Obama is not Carter, or Clinton, or Reagan, or anyone but Obama. He got Osama, he's got cred on foreign policy now and Americans broadly like the man, even if they don't care for the direction of the country.
It's pretty common, especially now, but the way they went about it was just stupid. At best a negative robocall campaign is worth maybe a tenth of a percent at the margins, probably less. TV ads, mailers, and actual calls are so much more effective in shaping the electorate. What these guys did was just dumb.
There are also better ways to suppress voter turnout than confusing robocalls and they don't even get you indicted. For starters, running a hard negative campaign and hoping it rains are probably the best way for a Republican to affect turnout in their favor. These days your campaign doesn't even have to be the ones doing the mudslinging, you can just publish your opposition research and let the 501c(4)s take care of the rest with no need to reveal doners or do anything but do dirty things to the other guy.