The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Pick a justice already. Legal battles shouldn't be halted until next January.

[Annoyed]

Pick a justice already. Legal battles shouldn't be halted until next January.

Ball is in the LSoS's court. All he has to do is propose a Justice that is acceptable to the Republican majority in Congress. He can do that any time he wishes.

[Starsaber]

Ball is in the LSoS's court. All he has to do is propose a Justice that is acceptable to the Republican majority in Congress. He can do that any time he wishes.

And from what I understand, the justice he proposed is a moderate that the majority is not scheduling an up or down vote on out of spite. And it's the majority of congress that needs to advise and consent, not just the majority of one party.

[jelgate]

And from what I understand, the justice he proposed is a moderate that the majority is not scheduling an up or down vote on out of spite. And it's the majority of congress that needs to advise and consent, not just the majority of one party.

Its pure politics. Its not Republician thing to me as the Democrats tried to do the same thing when Bush was in office and they held Congress. Something I abhor. The legal system should not be stopped just to suit a power battle. Its why I get so annoyed with politics.

[Annoyed]

And from what I understand, the justice he proposed is a moderate that the majority is not scheduling an up or down vote on out of spite. And it's the majority of congress that needs to advise and consent, not just the majority of one party.

Actually, the House doesn't even get a voice. The President nominates, and the Senate can confirm or deny.

The Republicans hold the Senate, and they've basically said that they will not approve a moderate or liberal.
So, if the current sorry excuse for a President wants to fill the seat, there is nothing stopping him from nominating a conservative.
I applaud the Senate for the path it has chosen. Judicial appointments, particularly to the SCOTUS are the single most important aspect of a Presidency, with repercussions lasting decades after the president who nominated a particular justice has left office, and it is of paramount importance that the current sorry excuse for a President not be allowed to shift the balance on the court to the left.

[LtColCarter]

So, if the current sorry excuse for a President wants to fill the seat, there is nothing stopping him from nominating a conservative.
I applaud the Senate for the path it has chosen. Judicial appointments, particularly to the SCOTUS are the single most important aspect of a Presidency, with repercussions lasting decades after the president who nominated a particular justice has left office, and it is of paramount importance that the current sorry excuse for a President not be allowed to shift the balance on the court to the left.

In spite of the ignorant, arrogant, narrow-minded, racist, homophobes...our President has been the most successful, scandal-free President in a long, long time. If President Obama wasn't a black man...there wouldn't be this issue. I've seen the hate come out in my own extended family. In spite of the hypocritical republicants, who hide behind false Christian values, wanting to make him a one term president...he rose above it and handled everything thrown at him with dignity and grace.

[Annoyed]

Have you ever heard me criticize the LSoS because of his race?
Have you ever heard me criticize him because of his religious faith, even though I suspect he has carefully hidden his true faith (Muslim) in order to avoid political criticism based on that?

No. You've heard me criticize him for his POLICIES.

The moniker "LSoS" is based upon his own repeated assurances that "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it" or "If you like your current doctor, you can keep him". How many people (like myself) have been forced to change doctors & insurance as a result of LSoScare? The cost of compliance with all of his crap forced my doctor to close her practice!

I've criticized him for has "world apology tour", where he basically toured the world apologizing for the US!.
I've criticized him for failing to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, which he swore to do upon taking the oath of office.

I could go on for hours, listing legitimate points of bad policy and poor decisions, and not one of them would have anything to do whatsoever with his race.

Please don't assume that because someone dislikes that sorry excuse for a president that the reason is his race. He has provided more than enough cause to dislike him simply by his behavior in office.

Or are you one of those that think he's so wonderful that the only reason someone might not like him is because he's black?

[Annoyed]

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
In the post above, I cited his failure to uphold the Constitiution and Laws of the US as one of my reasons for despising the current sorry excuse for a president.

And in today's news:
Lawmakers furious at DOJ move that could protect fired VA official

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a letter sent Tuesday, notified House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., that the DOJ would not defend a key provision of the Veteran Affairs reform law, passed in the wake of the scandal over officials covering up long patient wait-times.

The provision in question had helped uphold the expedited firing of the Phoenix official at the heart of the scandal, Sharon Helman.

Now, lawmakers say Lynch's decision could put Helman back on the job, as she pursues a lawsuit against the government.

Helman had been fired in November 2014 amid criticism not only over the wait-time cover-ups at the Phoenix VA but also unreported gifts. Congressional critics warn the DOJ move is a blow to accountability.

So, we have this Sharon Helman who was mismanaging her VA office, causing delays in providing services to deserving veterans and a whole lot worse from what I've read.

Somebody finally finds a way to pry her out of office, but the LSoS chooses not to enforce that part of a law that he himself signed!

I'm sorry, but he didn't swear an oath to defend only the parts of the constitution and laws that he likes.
8 years into his term and this "constitutional scholar" hasn't figured that out yet?

[garhkal]

Interesting stance from the Llama.
.

Not to me.. All he's doing is acknowledging that letting in thousands of 'refugees' flood into a country will change the culture and laws there and most often for the worse.. TO the home culture that is.

It makes sense.
I mean, you could see it as "un-humanitarian", and it's -easy- to do it, but escaping a culture merely to destroy another is a mistake we have made all too often, and arguably more dangerous.
Refugee's, no matter the stripe should always be a temporary measure, not a solution.

Egads, me and gatefan agree yet again.. Though i will also add, that refugees who skip over 'safer areas' to get to ones they would "Prefer to live in cause of what handouts they can get" are not to ME true refugees..

And now, more questions about Hillary's email server. Yippee!

Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it is my understanding that if a witness is granted immunity, he cannot plead the 5th amendment right to not testify against himself.

So how come the government is letting him plead the 5th?

Dunno. but to me if i was those FBI lawyers, i would be swiftly telling Plagliano, Either speak out, or lose your immunity deal..

[aretood2]

s
but what does immigration policy have to do with libertarianism?

you can very well have a highly libertarian state that completely locks its borders to foreigners (no freedoms infringed within the nation's territory, outsiders' freedoms aren't infringed either since their freedoms hinge on the laws of the country they're currently in, not the country they're trying to get in)

you can just as easily have an ultra-authoritarian state that allows unrestricted immigration (of course both citizens & immigrants will be heavily oppressed so question is why would anyone emigrate there unless they're seriously masochistic, but that's irrelevant)

Ultra-authoritarian states that allow free migrations of people are um...few and far in-between. Immigration is seen as an economic activity so it falls under the same umbrella as capitalism. Free trade, free market, and free migrations of workers equal best economic outcome. Countries produce products that they have a comparative advantage in, workers follow jobs, and this is made possible by the lack of trade barriers. Also, unions tend to be weaker in light of immigrants.

Not to me.. All he's doing is acknowledging that letting in thousands of 'refugees' flood into a country will change the culture and laws there and most often for the worse.. TO the home culture that is.

I agree, though I don't understand your use of 'quotes'.

The main trait of a refugee is that they have zero desire to add to the nation they are in. There is no chance of assimilation, nothing. That's a danger to any nation taking in more than they can handle. And if Germany truly cared, they'd send troops to Syria. In my opinion, the number one concern of a nation that takes in refugees, should be to find a way to get them back home.

[Gatefan1976]

And now, more questions about Hillary's email server. Yippee!

Clinton IT aide Pagliano to plead Fifth in email case



Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it is my understanding that if a witness is granted immunity, he cannot plead the 5th amendment right to not testify against himself.

So how come the government is letting him plead the 5th?

Tell me, What is the use of a server?
Could you Identify one in a room?
What is it's function?
Did it prevent her Email's going to where they were supposed to go?

Do you folks crying a river over this issue -actually- know what it is you are upset over?
I don't mean Hillary being a liar, that is a given, I mean -this issue-

[Annoyed]

A server provides services, in this case, email. The also provide other services, such as record keeping. If desired, a mail server can permanently store every piece of mail that goes through it for years, or longer. Many companies, do this exact same thing. You use your company email service, through their servers for official business, and they have the right to it, it is their legal property. Government does the same thing. Either the government or a company has every right to access that email for whatever reason it wants to; investigation of wrongdoing, etc.

While Secretary of State, Hillary chose to operate a mail server on her own, outside of the possession or control of the US government and to use it for official business. That's a No-no on its own.

As I seem to recall, the whole issue came to light when some other activity of the State dept. was being looked into. People were trying to find emails, and they were nowhere to be found.

[jelgate]

Me thinks Annoyed doesn't understand computers. I stand by my earlier stance that they are both criminals

[Gatefan1976]

A server provides services, in this case, email. The also provide other services, such as record keeping. If desired, a mail server can permanently store every piece of mail that goes through it for years, or longer. Many companies, do this exact same thing. You use your company email service, through their servers for official business, and they have the right to it, it is their legal property. Government does the same thing. Either the government or a company has every right to access that email for whatever reason it wants to; investigation of wrongdoing, etc.

While Secretary of State, Hillary chose to operate a mail server on her own, outside of the possession or control of the US government and to use it for official business. That's a No-no on its own.

As I seem to recall, the whole issue came to light when some other activity of the State dept. was being looked into. People were trying to find emails, and they were nowhere to be found.

So, the answer is no then.

[Gatefan1976]

Me thinks Annoyed doesn't understand computers. I stand by my earlier stance that they are both criminals

I don't know if you can prove the charge of criminal for Hillary.
Liar, flip flopper, opportunist, warhawk, only interested in her own power etc, etc, etc.
ETC.............
Sure