Support NeoGAF

[David Incorporated Esq.]

LOL, for real?

Chris Matthews has actually been pretty critical of how Benghazi was handled. He's one of the people that, rightly, wants to know what the full chain of events, but more to learn from mistakes made than to nail anyone against the wall (I think).

It could also be that they have to have somebody talking about it on MSNBC, but that's pretty cynical of me.

I am getting sick and tired of the bridgegate nonsense on MSNBC. There's not enough material to carry the coverage they're giving it and you end up hearing the same thing every hour. It would be much better to wait until the investigation pans out and then examine the results. Christie is dead in 2016 because of this, MSNBC doesn't need to push as hard as they are to hurt his image.

 

[gcubed]

Why would you need an America day in America? The idea should have been rejected just for being stupid.

Reminds me if the terrible Bob Dylan/Detroit commercial...

"There's nothing more American then America!"

 

[Avon Barksdale]

A good idea would be to stay away from cable "news" at that.

 

[speculawyer]

I am getting sick and tired of the bridgegate nonsense on MSNBC. There's not enough material to carry the coverage they're giving it and you end up hearing the same thing every hour. It would be much better to wait until the investigation pans out and then examine the results. Christie is dead in 2016 because of this, MSNBC doesn't need to push as hard as they are to hurt his image.

They are spending too much time on it. But you need to cut them some slack . . . they kind of broke this story since Rachel started raising like 3 months ago. The story might never have seen the light of day if not for MSNBC. So let them have a victory lap.

But yeah, they need to reduce the time they spend on it. Let it play out and just give it 1 segment. There is lots of other things going on that they are ignoring because of this story.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't knee-jerk oppose all celebrity candidates .. . but no, just no.

This is a sad state of our politics . . . the Dems have a singing contest contestant nominee and the GOP has a talk radio nominee.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Former "American Idol" runner-up Clay Aiken is running for Congress in North Carolina.

Aiken said Wednesday he'll seek the Democratic nomination for the seat currently held by Rep. Renee Ellmers.

The 35-year-old Aiken is expected to face former state commerce secretary Keith Crisco of Asheboro and licensed professional counselor Toni Morris of Fayetteville in the Democratic primary.

Aiken has been a special education teacher in Wake County. He says he decided to put his entertainment career on hold and seek to represent the state's 2nd Congressional District.

He says he considers Washington to be dysfunctional and will focus on jobs and the economy and the importance of education.

Ellmers faces radio talk show host Frank Roche of Cary in the Republican primary.

http://news.yahoo.com/clay-aiken-run-congress-north-carolina-114426197.html

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Question: Why doesn't obama just pardon undocumented immigrants or at least DREAMERS? It doesn't give them legal status but it takes away an immediate threat of deportation.

If the right throws a fit just ask them to read Article II, Section 2.

 

[AndyD]

Has there been any discussion here of the national guard recruiting kickback scandal? Half a billion wasted in fraud. Did not see a peep on the news, the only mention was on NPR.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Question: Why doesn't obama just pardon undocumented immigrants or at least DREAMERS? It doesn't give them legal status but it takes away an immediate threat of deportation.

If the right throws a fit just ask them to read Article II, Section 2.

Because it doesn't fix the system, and I assume it would give lawmakers even less incentive to do anything.

 

[Mike M]

Question: Why doesn't obama just pardon undocumented immigrants or at least DREAMERS? It doesn't give them legal status but it takes away an immediate threat of deportation.

If the right throws a fit just ask them to read Article II, Section 2.

Can someone be pardoned before they're tried and convicted?

 

[Tamanon]

Question: Why doesn't obama just pardon undocumented immigrants or at least DREAMERS? It doesn't give them legal status but it takes away an immediate threat of deportation.

If the right throws a fit just ask them to read Article II, Section 2.

Well, they would have to be convicted first, right? And then any other time they spent here would be a new crime.

It doesn't fix the problem.

 

[Tamanon]

I don't knee-jerk oppose all celebrity candidates .. . but no, just no.

This is a sad state of our politics . . . the Dems have a singing contest contestant nominee and the GOP has a talk radio nominee.

http://news.yahoo.com/clay-aiken-run-congress-north-carolina-114426197.html

He's not even the biggest Idol contestant in North Carolina, seems poorly thought out. GOP should get Scotty McReary to run against him.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Can someone be pardoned before they're tried and convicted?

Yes. Remember when Ford pardoned Nixon?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can someone be pardoned before they're tried and convicted?

Whiskey rebellion (WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS THINK!!!!!?????), Nixon, Draft Dodgers, turkeys

It can be used as an amnesty, it only can't be used in impeachment

Because it doesn't fix the system, and I assume it would give lawmakers even less incentive to do anything.

I guess I don't see it making things worse it would just give a reason to the GOP for why they're doing nothing. Rubio's already blamed the lack of progress on Immigration on Benghazi. They're not serious.

I just see it has something to end deportations. Or it should at least be used as a threat against inaction. Families shouldn't be torn apart because a bunch of xenophobes don't want them here (I've fielded many racist phone calls that have infuriated me). And if the argument is 'they're criminals they need to face the consequences' Obama should say ok, they're criminals, and the Constitution says I can pardon criminals.

I'm very passionate about immigration because its a moral issue and I'm sick and tired of xenophobes preventing anything from getting done.

At the very least a progressive group should raise the possibility.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I just see it has something to end deportations. Or it should at least be used as a threat against inaction. Families shouldn't be torn apart because a bunch of xenophobes don't want them here (I've fielded many racist phone calls that have infuriated me). And if the argument is 'they're criminals they need to face the consequences' Obama should say ok, they're criminals, and the Constitution says I can pardon criminals.

I'm not sure a pardon would necessarily end deportations. To my understanding (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong), removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. So a pardon would have no effect on deportations.

EDIT: Here's a WaPo blog post on the subject.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not sure a pardon would necessarily end deportations. To my understanding (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong), removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. So a pardon would have no effect on deportations.

Can you pardon civil? And doesn't the president have authority on who to prioritize?
I'd imagine it'd work together. Or at least prevent future deportation under this administration

 

[AndyD]

Can you pardon civil? And doesn't the president have authority on who to prioritize?
I'd imagine it'd work together. Or at least prevent future deportation under this administration

I don't think you can pardon civil.

But he has discretion on prioritization, and he has already said that certain groups won't be targeted for deportation (children brought over).

 

[Metaphoreus]

Can you pardon civil? And doesn't the president have authority on who to prioritize?
I'd imagine it'd work together. Or at least prevent future deportation under this administration

The Constitution says that the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The term "Offences against the United States" seems to limit the pardon power to criminal offenses. As I understand removal proceedings, what is at issue is not whether the person has committed some "Offence" against the U.S., but whether the person has a legal right to be present in the U.S. So it's hard to see what the president could pardon that would enable a person to remain in the U.S.

As for the president's discretion with respect to priority, it's true that some prioritization scheme must be implemented. Beyond that, the subject becomes a bit murky, since the president has a Constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Suffice to say, legislative action is far preferable to unilateral executive action.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The Constitution says that the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The term "Offences against the United States" seems to limit the pardon power to criminal offenses. As I understand removal proceedings, what is at issue is not whether the person has committed some "Offence" against the U.S., but whether the person has a legal right to be present in the U.S. So it's hard to see what the president could pardon that would enable a person to remain in the U.S.

As for the president's discretion with respect to priority, it's true that some prioritization scheme must be implemented. Beyond that, the subject becomes a bit murky, since the president has a Constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Suffice to say, legislative action is far preferable to unilateral executive action.

And when there is no legislative action?

And I don't buy the argument that being here illegally isn't a 'offence against the United States,' he can't pardon private wrongs (civil cases between private parties) but deportation and being here illegally is an offense against the US.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

I don't see why you couldn't make that argument. I see nothing that says no civil just "offensives against the US"

 

[Metaphoreus]

And when there is no legislative action?

Well, there's a reason I started with "suffice to say."

 

[teiresias]

So now the Keystone demands are off the table for the GOP over the debt ceiling as well. "Exploring other options." Haha!!

 

[kehs]

Question: Why doesn't obama just pardon undocumented immigrants or at least DREAMERS? It doesn't give them legal status but it takes away an immediate threat of deportation.

If the right throws a fit just ask them to read Article II, Section 2.

Pardoning them won't do anything other than remove the punishment.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pardoning them won't do anything other than remove the punishment.

I know it doesn't make them legal. But it keeps them here.


Politico is crap:

There’s a lot more fine print about what those numbers really mean, and whether the jobs were “lost.” In fact, CBO said it’s in large part about the number of hours people choose to work, not actual job losses.

But what matters politically is how the numbers look in attack ads. And in this election year, “2 million lost jobs” is a Republican ad-maker’s dream.

Yup that's all that matters, not facts but how 'it looks in attack ads' even when its factually inaccurate

 

[Aaron Strife]

I know it doesn't make them legal. But it keeps them here.


Politico is crap:


Yup that's all that matters, not facts but how 'it looks in attack ads' even when its factually inaccurate

And Ed Gillespie is going to be the next senator of Virginia.

Calling Politico crap is being generous to Politico.

 

[RustyNails]

Wow GOP folding like cheap lawn furniture. They have no idea what they want with debt ceiling.

 

[bonercop]

Because it doesn't fix the system, and I assume it would give lawmakers even less incentive to do anything.

I think this is a weak-ass excuse. Deportations have ramped up under this president's watch, and the only response out of him to this has been during speeches, when he proudly touts that fact.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wow GOP folding like cheap lawn furniture. They have no idea what they want with debt ceiling.

But they don't want anything. Boehner can't get 218 to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. They're insane - at least when democrats are in office. I seriously doubt a President Romney would have any issue raising the debt ceiling in the House.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

But they don't want anything. Boehner can't get 218 to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. They're insane - at least when democrats are in office. I seriously doubt a President Romney would have any issue raising the debt ceiling in the House.

Definitely why we should have elected him.

 

[Oblivion]

Chris Matthews has actually been pretty critical of how Benghazi was handled. He's one of the people that, rightly, wants to know what the full chain of events, but more to learn from mistakes made than to nail anyone against the wall (I think).

It could also be that they have to have somebody talking about it on MSNBC, but that's pretty cynical of me.

I am getting sick and tired of the bridgegate nonsense on MSNBC. There's not enough material to carry the coverage they're giving it and you end up hearing the same thing every hour. It would be much better to wait until the investigation pans out and then examine the results. Christie is dead in 2016 because of this, MSNBC doesn't need to push as hard as they are to hurt his image.

It could also be that Matthews is bringing up Benghazi because Bill O' brought it up with the President.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Wow GOP folding like cheap lawn furniture. They have no idea what they want with debt ceiling.

Obama: "Tell you what, in exchange for a vote on the debt ceiling, we'll let you vote on my immigration reform proposal as well."

 

[pigeon]

Meanwhile, in the "impending GOP meltdown" column...

Insurgent conservatives seeking to pull the Republican Party to the right raised more money last year than the groups controlled by the party establishment, whose bulging bank accounts and ties to major donors have been their most potent advantage in the running struggle over the party’s future, according to new campaign disclosures and interviews with officials.

The shift in fortunes among the largest and most influential outside political groups, revealed in campaign filings made public late Friday, could have an enormous impact on the 2014 election cycle. The warring Republican factions are preparing to square off in a series of Senate and House primaries around the country as Republican leaders seek to rein in activists who they believe have fractured and endangered the party with policies that alienate independent-leaning voters....

The battles are being watched closely, especially in Kentucky, where the Senate Conservatives Fund and other conservative groups are backing a primary challenge to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader and one of the most powerful Republican leaders in Washington.

No such division exists in the Democratic Party, where outside groups are successfully recruiting new donors and collaborating on big races. Two “super PACs” that are focused on helping Democrats in Congress announced record fund-raising on Friday, pulling in a total of $16.4 million — twice their total in 2011, the last comparable year....

Four Republican-leaning groups with close ties to the party’s leadership in Congress — Crossroads and its super PAC affiliate; the Congressional Leadership Fund; and Young Guns Action Fund — raised a combined $7.7 million in 2013. By contrast, four conservative organizations that have battled Republican candidates deemed too moderate or too yielding on spending issues — FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth Action Fund, the Senate Conservatives Fund, and the Tea Party Patriots — raised a total of $20 million in 2013, according to Federal Election Commission reports filed on Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/u...atives-lead-way-in-gop-fund-raising.html?_r=0

The establishment is only the establishment because it has money. If it loses its fundraising advantage over the grassroots, then there's no core party any more. That means Santorum. All over everything.

 

[FLEABttn]

So Boehner's new debt-ceiling plan is to roll-back military COLA in exchange for raising the debt ceiling for a year.

So, in order to allow the government to pay back money, he's requiring it to spend more.

 

[Black Mamba]

So Boehner's new debt-ceiling plan is to roll-back military COLA in exchange for raising the debt ceiling for a year.

So, in order to allow the government to pay back money, he's requiring it to spend more.

Just about to post it:

A new break in the GOP's debt-ceiling strategy emerged at a private lunch on Wednesday, where House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) encouraged his allies to consider linking a restoration of recently cut military benefits with a one-year extension of the federal government's borrowing authority.

According to two people present at the lunch and two others familiar with the session, Boehner said the maneuver would likely force Democrats to join with Republicans and also win support from conservatives, who have been upset about changes to the military's cost-of-living benefits, which were adjusted in December.

Boehner did not endorse the idea, the sources added, but he did urge the group of more than a dozen of his loyalists to talk up the possible play with colleagues. And if the idea gains momentum, he is open to potentially bringing it to the floor, they said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ider-linking-military-benefits-to-debt-limit/

This would be a bit dicey for Obama. On the one hand, he shouldn't negotiate over anything. On the other, not raising the debt ceiling over military benefits could be bad and a lot of Dems may be forced to sign on anyway.

Good chance the caucus can't bring it up anyway, which would be best. This stuff should be done separately.

 

[gcubed]

How is it dicey, sound like a great option. Who would have thought the republicans would say you can't have the debt cieling raised without more stimulus

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Just about to post it:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ider-linking-military-benefits-to-debt-limit/

This would be a bit dicey for Obama. On the one hand, he shouldn't negotiate over anything. On the other, not raising the debt ceiling over military benefits could be bad and a lot of Dems may be forced to sign on anyway.

Good chance the caucus can't bring it up anyway, which would be best. This stuff should be done separately.

Why is it bad? They want to Raise the debt ceiling and give government workers (former government workers) a raise.

Where's the downside? Sounds like a minor stimulus and productive spending. They're gonna argue that in the future this is precedent for cutting at the next deficit? Obama says no then. They won't let the country default.

 

[fallagin]

Just about to post it:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ider-linking-military-benefits-to-debt-limit/

This would be a bit dicey for Obama. On the one hand, he shouldn't negotiate over anything. On the other, not raising the debt ceiling over military benefits could be bad and a lot of Dems may be forced to sign on anyway.

Good chance the caucus can't bring it up anyway, which would be best. This stuff should be done separately.

Maybe to preempt it the dems should just propose a seperate bill that restores the military benefits period.

 

[empty vessel]

The battles are being watched closely, especially in Kentucky, where the Senate Conservatives Fund and other conservative groups are backing a primary challenge to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader and one of the most powerful Republican leaders in Washington.

What's gross is that companies like AT&T and Comcast contribute thousands of dollars to the Senate Conservatives Fund. And I can't boycott them without also boycotting access to the internet. This is why corporations should be barred from all political participation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Maybe to preempt it the dems should just propose a seperate bill that restores the military benefits period.

Won't pass the house

 

[Black Mamba]

How is it dicey, sound like a great option. Who would have thought the republicans would say you can't have the debt cieling raised without more stimulus

It establishes the debt ceiling as something to negotiate over.

Next time they can say "hey, you negotiated last time? Why not now?"

What Reid should do is put the bill for the COLA out right now since the debt ceiling doesn't have to be raised for a month. Make it a separate issue.

Won't pass the house

Won't matter. As long as it passes the Senate before the debt ceiling stuff, then it won't actually have been "negotiated" as part of the debt ceiling.

Now it's just a procedural thing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why is it bad? They want to Raise the debt ceiling and give government workers (former government workers) a raise.

Where's the downside? Sounds like a minor stimulus and productive spending. They're gonna argue that in the future this is precedent for cutting at the next deficit? Obama says no then. They won't let the country default.

Agreed, I see no problem with this.

Black Mamba: Obama set that precedent already, in 2011.

 

[empty vessel]

What was the reason for the cut to military benefits to begin with? Anyone know?

 

[Black Mamba]

What was the reason for the cut to military benefits to begin with? Anyone know?

I may be wrong, but I think it was part of the 2014 sequester cuts.

 

[gcubed]

Obama sets the precedent that only stimulus raises the debt ceiling. Win win!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It establishes the debt ceiling as something to negotiate over.

Next time they can say "hey, you negotiated last time? Why not now?"
.

You say: NO.

They aren't going to not pass a debt ceiling.
This doesn't establish the debt ceiling as something to negotiate, it establishes the GOP as idiots who are blackmailing the dems with a policy they support

What was the reason for the cut to military benefits to begin with? Anyone know?

Budget deal in December


Look at Boehners rhetoric now:

“Listen, the goal here is to increase the debt ceiling. Nobody wants to default on our debt. But while we’re doing this, we ought to do something about either jobs and the economy, about the drivers of our debt. And so we’re talking to our members, and when we have a decision, we’ll let you know.”

The debt isn't even front and center now. Post austerity (doesn't mean the GOP won't make cuts just on programs they hate, AKA the ones who help poor and middle class people)

 

[empty vessel]

Budget deal in December

So just to inflict pain on people. Was it forced on Democrats as a way of spreading cuts around?

 

[Black Mamba]

You say: NO.

They aren't going to not pass a debt ceiling.
This doesn't establish the debt ceiling as something to negotiate, it establishes the GOP as idiots who are blackmailing the dems with a policy they support



Budget deal in December


Look at Boehners rhetoric now:



The debt isn't even front and center now. Post austerity (doesn't mean the GOP won't make cuts just on programs they hate, AKA the ones who help poor and middle class people)

sahilkapur House Dem leadership aide rebuffs Boehner on tying debt limit to military COLAs: "No negotiating means no negotiation.

Guess they see it my way. Of course Obama could say "no" but they lose the messaging if they ever negotiate.

No negotiations on anything, IMO. That's the right way to approach.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So just to inflict pain on people. Was it forced on Democrats as a way of spreading cuts around?

I don't know how negotiated it but the military has actually pushed it as personnel costs are always what the top brass wants to cut (can't touch weapon procurement, close bases, not fight as many wars!).

But Politico is scum (again) for running this paragraph

A third option has also surfaced in recent days. Republicans have privately expressed interest in reversing recent changes to cost-of-living benefits for the military. The so-called COLA formula was tweaked in a budget agreement authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), but Republicans have since sought to reverse this provision.

Yup, its only republican's standing up for the poor veteran, dems just want to see them suffer

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Guess they see it my way. Of course Obama could say "no" but they lose the messaging if they ever negotiate.

No negotiations on anything, IMO. That's the right way to approach.

Your not gonna get it reversed anytime soon then.

House Ds don't have much of a say. Its up to Reid to see how he reacts. I wouldn't mind him putting the COLA bill out now or countering a joint bill but relenting on a joint bill that ties the too. I don't fear this precedent argument because its only precedent if people think it is and this isn't gonna break the GOP's fire to keep doing this every time.

 

[Black Mamba]

Your not gonna get it reversed anytime soon then.

House Ds don't have much of a say. Its up to Reid to see how he reacts. I wouldn't mind him putting the COLA bill out now or countering a joint bill but relenting on a joint bill that ties the too. I don't fear this precedent argument because its only precedent if people think it is and this isn't gonna break the GOP's fire to keep doing this every time.

Reid was already planning on a bill next week on it.

I think the House Ds matter cuz I don't think Boehner can get 218 without them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Lol a GOP website is getting blocked as a phishing site.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, it's the one that falsely claims to be a Democratic campaign site, right?

Didn't claim it, but it was designed to fool people into believing it was. I'd consider it fraud.