I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Is what Grassley said true about paying for this by borrowing from Social Security?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's not a trigger so I like it. Honestly it's what I assumed Rubio would be adding to the bill during the Gang of 8 discussions, but instead he added that weird trigger. This amendment is almost like a small stimulus. Money for security, border agents, construction project (finishing the fence along the southern border), etc. It's quite a harmless compromise that takes away the right's biggest complaint ("we need to secure the border first"). Well and influx of agents, drones, and a fence should be enough to garner bipartisan support. In the senate, at least...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its Grassley so probably not.
No, this seems to be something else. Kos just reported on it as well right now.
Boehner broke the Haster rule before, by golly he'll break it again. He didn't lose his speakership over it the first time, so I think he's safe (unfortunately, fortunately?).
Unless the Tea Party somehow manages to outnumber the old school GOP he's safe. Most of them know he'd be doing it for their own good.
Black Mamba
Member
Last week I posted a story from Holly Paz, an IRS official, who claimed "Tea Party" meant any potential political group to the committee. She specifically said liberal named were targeted as well on the BOLO.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64573846&postcount=5386
This story today, however, has physical proof (since it's a document) that corroborates that story and also tells us some specific terms targeted.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's the typical fallacy of spending any government money=taking money away from seniors.
Ah, gotcha.
this snoedan leak situation is ridiculous, who do we have to nuke to get respect around here? I've heard half a dozen times from conservative pundits that other countries are laughing at us and it makes me feel inferior, it's time for war. Just now on Bret Baier's show a conservative said this is because our president leads from behind so they don't respect us.
LOL,
Everything in the world is because Obama leads from behind on Bret Baier's show.
RustyNails
Member
Does the border amendment say that people should get in line after the border is secured, or can they get in line while the border is being secured? It's a 14 year wait period. Adding another 4-5 years is just ridiculous.
I think it has nothing to do with the actual process, it's just something that runs concurrently.
Kim Jong Un gets respect, he's a real leader.
Rodman is his friend for life, who does Obama have? Eric Holder.
I think we all know who won the best black friend competition there.
Eric Holder?
Oh man, did he subpoena the GAF records?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Holy shit you're a mod
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I really liked this part of one of David Simon's blog posts concerning the NSA and Snowden leaks.
He then goes on to talk about the DNA case.
empty vessel
Member
A government can't borrow from itself. It doesn't make sense.
The Fourth Amendment itself is about limiting the government's ability to acquire data. Quite an oversight by Simon.
Get out of here, stalker!
Truthfacts: we were about to leave the place, when Jooney pointed out that Dax would demand pics. So we got a server to take one for us.
P.S. Jooney's accent is much stronger in real life than on the forum.
For the longest time I though you were black. This picture honestly surprises me.
I also expected Jooney to look like Kyle McLaughlin from Dune, but that's because his avatar kinda sorta looks like Kyle McLaughlin.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He doesn't say it's not. He's saying that the government already had these abilities under current understanding of the 4th amendment (he uses the word, legal methods) but there is an artificial line being drawn saying it's ok for this on certain things but not others because of a hypothetical potential for abuse.
I would assume you approve of warrants? Don't they have the potential for abuse? Planting evidence is an example Simon makes. We don't outlaw a method because it can be abused. We outlaw the abuse.
The outrage over the NSA seems to build down to two things. 1.feeling it oversteps the constitution (I'm assuming you fall in this camp) which is questionable and probably would fail a challenge (case law says metadata isn't protected). Or 2. Fear over a future abuse which is what Simon was addressing.
empty vessel
Member
Simon's argument is facile. He is calling the actions of the government--specifically, its acquisition of phone records relating to every American citizen--"legal" because of the existence of a court order. But he fails to apply any level of critical thinking towards the legality of the order itself or its consistency with Fourth Amendment principles. In fact, an order from a secret court giving the government carte blanche to collect information about American citizens is not legal, meaning it cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment--which presumes public courts, not secret courts, incidentally--prohibits warrants from being issued unless based upon probable cause and supported by Oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These requirements--written expressly into the constitution--are specifically to prohibit the kind of activities the government is doing now. What we have is an example of a failure of checks and balances. That the judicial branch is working in coordination with the executive to violate the rights of Americans doesn't make the activity "legal" except by hand waving. What the FISA court issued was a general warrant, precisely the kind of warrant the Fourth Amendment was meant to prohibit.
The rubber stamping of the executive by the judicial branch has become a tremendous problem, not just in cases like this, but in everyday criminal cases as well. Our system of checks and balances is broken and has been for a while. Throw in some secret courts and it just becomes laughable, democratically unjustifiable. Simon should be ashamed of himself for attempting to do so. He seriously lacks perspective.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Exactly
And when did EV become such an originalist in his constitutional interpretation?
empty vessel
Member
The acquisition of all phone records does.
There is a reason the government went to a secret court to get access.
I'm not an originalist. It doesn't mean I think history or historical reasoning is irrelevant. We can have a discussion about whether we ought to have a Fourth Amendment that requires the government to have probable cause and to particularly describe the items sought. I'm not opposed to that discussion. But if we're agreed that we should have it, then it matters whether we're adhering to it.
speculawyer
Member
I don't know. Won't some wing-nuts try weigh it down with crazy amendments. Add a ban for all abortions and triple Gitmo or something.
I just can't see it getting through the House no matter what is in it. But then again, I've become very pessimistic about anything getting passed in the next 3 years.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It seems like a good middle ground to me. Don't be cruel by breaking up families that have mostly integrated into our society already by giving them a path to citizenship instead of deporting them, while taking steps towards making sure we don't turn this into a sign for all immigrants to immigrate here illegally.
I don't think a completely open door policy for immigration is good thing, and if we are just going to continue to give amnesty to everyone who illegally immigrated here every few years, that's basically what we have.
Mass influxes of poor people will only makes our lower class's standard of living even lower, as they have to compete more and more with people who are used to terrible standards of living (although it probably does raise the standard of living of the middle and upper classes as it makes it a lot easier for them to exploit the lower classes).
It also makes our more liberal ideas like universal health care much harder to achieve, because all these people who can't pay for it raises the cost on these things, and makes raising the minimum wage impossible because most poor people would just be happy to work for 3 dollars an hour just to have a job.
I can feel for wanting to help those people in crappy situations in other parts of the world, but if our goal is to do that, then that should mean doing whatever it takes to turn the situation around in that country, instead of moving everyone in that country to this one, and honestly telling people to fix their own country before coming here is a part of that.
If the House Republicans manage to drill themselves even deeper into the approval rating hole by blocking immigration reform, make that a year and a half.
Black Mamba
Member
The House is first going to try to pass its own immigration reform. It will be more tot he right than this one. If it does passes, then they go into committee together to hash out the real package, then both chambers vote on it. I don't think any new amendments would be added after this committee even if there's an attempt.
Once the two chambers agree on reform package, Boehner will keep enough GOP in line to prevent its demise.
However, if the House can't pass its own package, it will be interesting to see if Boehner allows the Senate bill to come to the floor (and clearly violate the Hastert rule). He could be under a lot of pressure and not even bringing a vote on it would hasten the demise of the GOP nationally and in particular for 2014.
Whatever crazy amendments and stuff will exist will be part of the original House plan, not the final potential stuff.
RustyNails
Member
I don't think a single teaparty congressman is going to vote for the immigration bill. It's a dead-end for them. I think the final senate vote on the bill will surpass 70.
speculawyer
Member
I don't think so. Most of them have safe districts. They do this crazy stuff to stay elected. Some may get turfed out if they go too far. But mid-term elections are mostly cranky old people showing up to the polls. So many might survive 2014 but be at risk in 2016.
I hope you are right but I don't think Boehner knows what he is doing. And the I think GOP is starting to realize that they are fucked no matter what they do. Even if they vote for immigration reform, the Latinos are still largely going to vote for the Dems. So they might as well not pass immigration reform and try to keep the number of immigrants down because most immigrants probably don't vote for the GOP (except Cubans and right-wing Canadians that come down here.)
BTW . .
Why is this Niall Ferguson guy famous? He seems like a real turbo douche. He seems to be GOP talking points with a Scottish accent (tax too high, too much regulation, Reagan is god, etc.). He was a douche on Real Time and he was a douche on the recent GPS with Fareed Zakaria. He even called some woman an 'affirmative action' hire. Fareed got taken aback by that.
From what I can tell he is some British asshole historian that happens to work at Harvard. I'm pretty sure he's the one that said Keynes was gay. He also wrote that we all should have let Germany win WWI. There's also a bunch of really dumb economic things he supports. So basically that.
Don't forget about that widely-panned Newsweek cover article he wrote before the election on why Obama needs to go. Disingenuous as fuck.
Black Mamba
Member
There are 4 ways this plays out.
1. The House passes a horrible immigration bill strictly on partisan lines and it dies in join committee essentially,
2. The house passes an immigration bill with mostly Dems voting, goes to committee, then passes House same way.
3. The House can't even vote on a bill because not enough GOP will support it so it fails completely
4. The house votes on the Senate bill and passes with mostly Dem votes.
I don't think 1 happens. 3 is the worst outcome for the GOP but possibly the most likely. 4 isn't very good and 2 is best. At least with 2 there will be some bipartisanship and the Senate bill will move more to the right than it is will be without it.
The GOP is kind of fucked, but I think it's way more fucked if 1 or 3 happens. They will take the total blame for the failure. If they let it pass, the new people may or may not go more Democrat. We're talking 15 years down the road here. the party won't be the same then. But if they don't pass it and are the clear reason for it, they will pay dearly in 2014 and 2016 IMO. granted, I don't like their chances there now, but it will be even worse.
yes, Obama/Dems will get the credit and yes short term there won't be much benefit. But there is potential for short term harm without it.
Boehner knows this but he also wants to keep his power. It will be interesting to see this one play out. In the end, Boehner will either rebuke his own party again for the sake of the party or he will be complicit in its demise for his own personal gain (or lack of loss). The problem with the GOP caucus from a political game point of view is that they are irrational. Not irrational in their political opinions but in their decision making. They will do things that hurt themselves for nonsensical reasons.
1. The House passes a horrible immigration bill strictly on partisan lines and it dies in join committee essentially,
2. The house passes an immigration bill with mostly Dems voting, goes to committee, then passes House same way.
3. The House can't even vote on a bill because not enough GOP will support it so it fails completely
4. The house votes on the Senate bill and passes with mostly Dem votes.
I don't think 1 happens. 3 is the worst outcome for the GOP but possibly the most likely. 4 isn't very good and 2 is best. At least with 2 there will be some bipartisanship and the Senate bill will move more to the right than it is will be without it.
The GOP is kind of fucked, but I think it's way more fucked if 1 or 3 happens. They will take the total blame for the failure. If they let it pass, the new people may or may not go more Democrat. We're talking 15 years down the road here. the party won't be the same then. But if they don't pass it and are the clear reason for it, they will pay dearly in 2014 and 2016 IMO. granted, I don't like their chances there now, but it will be even worse.
yes, Obama/Dems will get the credit and yes short term there won't be much benefit. But there is potential for short term harm without it.
Boehner knows this but he also wants to keep his power. It will be interesting to see this one play out. In the end, Boehner will either rebuke his own party again for the sake of the party or he will be complicit in its demise for his own personal gain (or lack of loss). The problem with the GOP caucus from a political game point of view is that they are irrational. Not irrational in their political opinions but in their decision making. They will do things that hurt themselves for nonsensical reasons.
Because this was a good thing...
Wyden and Udall pretty much accuse the NSA in lying -
Let's keep taking the NSA at their word, we can totally trust them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/senators-nsa-letter-inaccurate-information-privacy
Let's keep taking the NSA at their word, we can totally trust them.
empty vessel
Member
Might have missed it, but I haven't seen this Matt Taibbi piece on corrupt credit ratings agencies linked in here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well if Democrats and Republicans are really tied with seniors in the swing districts as the Democracy Corps poll showed recently, many of these guys are in huge trouble.
speculawyer
Member
Hannity doesn't appreciate the difference between fear & respect. Fear is something people have toward violent criminals because you feel you may get hurt. Respect is earned admiration from doing things that people agree with. Bush was feared but Obama gets respect.
When Russia promptly retarded NATO's expansion into Georgia in 2008 by military force, was Putin not sticking his finger in America's face? He intervened militarily only months after Bush advocated the extension of a MAP to Georgia in Bucharest; his utter failure to push his agenda accentuates the disregard with which other states treated us. That's far more egregious than Putin's indifference to Snowden. No, we were not feared under Bush. We were loathed to an unprecedented extent. Our reputation was tarnished.
A transatlantic free trade agreement would benefit both America and Europe. The estimates I have reviewed indicate further integration, especially greater freedom for FDI, would appreciably boost growth. The principal hiccups would be the Boeing-Airbus rivalry and agricultural biotechnology regulation. The EU prefers much stricter regulation of agriculture, specifically GMOs, whereas the U.S. is more laissez-faire.
The issue lacks prominence in the media, but it enjoys broad political support. So I think an agreement is inevitable. Europe's strong labor and environmental regulations obviate the typical objections to trade liberalization.
To me one of the most frustrating contradictions has been Obama saying he thinks it's time we had this "national conversation" about security vs. freedom. He said he didn't think we could have it five years ago.
Meanwhile it's only happening because of one guy, who they are both working feverishly to discredit, and incarcerate/silence. Quite the conversation there, Bams.
lol the quotes are killing me.
More than I'm disappointed at him, I'm disappointed at the Democratic base (and by extension the Democrats in congress).
Maybe I'm cynical, but I think the executive only give up powers when its forced to, you don't get to be POTUS without an big ego, and I'm sure every single one of them think that they can yield those powers for the greater good.
Partisan politics can truly be toxic to healthy governance.
What's partisan about it? On national security and invading privacy, Bush and Obama are identical. In this area, no significant politician is going to act in the public interest because it would actually make them beholden to the public. The national healthcare plan is practically bread and circuses in comparison. This would open a window of responsibility they want to keep firmly shut.
TacticalFox88
Banned
So what's the verdict guys? Did the Presidency corrupt Obama or was Obama corrupt before the Presidency?
Black Mamba
Member
IIRC, the questions were worded different in this one. In fact, I believe in the 2006 dataset it actually asked about Bush's illegal wiretapping and this time about the NSA data collection.
So we could only be seeing a shift in views from the republicans and not the others (I don't think it's a limb to believe those that supported wiretapping wouldn't support data collection less so).
Or maybe this is a different Pew poll dataset than the one I saw a couple weeks ago.
edit: Also with some republicans having left the party and becoming "independent" of late, it could also represent the shifting dynamics of those groups (if moderate repub became dems but also supported the surveillance in 2006 it would lower GOP today while increasing it for indies).
- Status