Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > President Obama signs the NDAA into law.

President Obama signs the NDAA into law. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Patriot. Act.

To vilify a man for pushing through Bob Dole's 20-year-old healthcare reform is a right you, as a Republican, no longer have and will never have again. Your Whining Card was voided after the 8 year police state experiment that was the Bush administration and its Republican-party-mainstays string pullers.

The only people who can henceforth criticize a Democrat for use of power, on any level, are Independents.
I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed of what my party has become.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Good job libtards who campaign for ever larger, more powerful government. Go vote to reelect this scoundrel and his willing executioners this year. Proud of you.
Sadly, it's just as likely that this would have happened under a President McCain.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I think it's over; there are no more chances. I fear for the country my grandson will live in, and even for my daughters, who are in their thirties.
It can be fixed, but I think that Paul is the only one with the stones to do it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
"Terrorist" is a term that can be defined quite broadly and subjectively.

This is quite sad.


Inflammatory, and not exactly a work of genius, but...

 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's all I'll say on the matter...
Not bloody likely.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not bloody likely.
Nope that's it - I'm done.

2012 resolution: Stop being Cassandra. If peeps are too stupid to manage their own destinies properly, it's not my problem.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
... do everything in your power (including registering GOP and voting in primaries)
I did exactly this recently; last summer I joined a political party I wouldn't normally support, just so I could vote in their leadership election. And, I'll do it again for other parties.

The biggest problem with Western politics isn't who we vote for in the elections, it's who gets selected to run in those elections. It's high time people start participating at the Party level of politics.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed of what my party has become.
This sounds like the introduction at a 12-Step program.

Helllllllo, Shaddim...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 01:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nope that's it - I'm done.

2012 resolution: Stop being Cassandra. If peeps are too stupid to manage their own destinies properly, it's not my problem.
Wasn't this a drama export a week or so ago?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 02:23 AM
 
Doofy's 2012 resolution should be that he tells us about his goddamn cat.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 03:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Wasn't this a drama export a week or so ago?
It still is - you haven't had a constitution for a while, so in effect I'm just trolling.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 07:44 AM
 
I'm a bit happier that the president is in charge of who gets detained as opposed to the military making this decision. That's one of the changes the president pushed for and got. In my view, he didn't waffle but rather had problems with specific details that Congress actually amended to his satisfaction, putting the Executive branch back in charge of foreign policy and so on, rather than having Congress legislate specific actions that conflict with the current administration's policy (and with the last one's policies as it turns out).

As a military retiree, I have a financial stake in the enactment of this bill; retirement pay is PAY (considered deferred compensation and thus taxable, as opposed to some sort of pension that might not be taxable), and is part of the payroll section of the National Defense Act's appropriations. Unlike many other retirees, I am not solely dependent on that retirement pay to get along, but it's not an inconsiderable chunk of my income and having to wait months for it to catch up with me would be quite unpleasant. Still, I actually felt the president was right to push for changes from the original bill; the Constitution puts foreign policy in the hands of the Executive branch, and our track record of having Congress control parts of foreign policy through legislation is pretty crappy.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I'm a bit happier that the president is in charge of who gets detained as opposed to the military making this decision. That's one of the changes the president pushed for and got. In my view, he didn't waffle but rather had problems with specific details that Congress actually amended to his satisfaction, putting the Executive branch back in charge of foreign policy and so on, rather than having Congress legislate specific actions that conflict with the current administration's policy (and with the last one's policies as it turns out).
But the President is in command of the military... Really, the only acceptable approach here, as far as I'm concerned, is to respect the rights of all people as guaranteed by our Constitution and the various treaties that we are a party to. The Geneva Conventions and various other treaties and laws already spell out reasonable terms and conditions for the identification, detention, and treatment of enemy combatants. The problem is that, pursuant to our now indefinite state of undeclared 'war', there's ambiguity over how those laws apply without a formal declaration of war. I, and, it would seem, many others (who, sadly, are not in Congress), consider any military action without a formal declaration of war to be unconstitutional in the first place; a position which, if actually abided by, would prevent the sort of ambiguous situation we have now. Unfortunately, it seems clear that nearly every candidate for both major parties is in favor of the status quo rather than being constrained by the law.

As a military retiree, I have a financial stake in the enactment of this bill; retirement pay is PAY (considered deferred compensation and thus taxable, as opposed to some sort of pension that might not be taxable), and is part of the payroll section of the National Defense Act's appropriations. Unlike many other retirees, I am not solely dependent on that retirement pay to get along, but it's not an inconsiderable chunk of my income and having to wait months for it to catch up with me would be quite unpleasant. Still, I actually felt the president was right to push for changes from the original bill; the Constitution puts foreign policy in the hands of the Executive branch, and our track record of having Congress control parts of foreign policy through legislation is pretty crappy.
This is part of the problem. Legislation regarding the indefinite detention of US citizens has no business being in an appropriations bill. Military pensions and other benefits should not be held hostage to the power-grabbing interests of the Executive and Legislature.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 08:28 AM
 
You knew this sh*t would happen when you have a Republican controlled House.

Patriot Act
Republicans: yea: 210, nay: 3
Democrats: yea: 145, nay: 62

NDAA
Republicans: yea: 227, nay: 6
Democrats: yea: 95, nay: 90
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You knew this sh*t would happen when you have a Republican controlled House.

Patriot Act
Republicans: yea: 210, nay: 3
Democrats: yea: 145, nay: 62

NDAA
Republicans: yea: 227, nay: 6
Democrats: yea: 95, nay: 90
Extrapolating from those numbers they both would also have happened with a Democrat controlled House.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 02:04 PM
 
Who said this wouldn't have happen under President McCain?

McCain freaking wrote the damn section in NDAA granting that power to detain suspected terrorist without a trial indefinitely, so you have McCain to thank for it.

At least Pres. Obama wrote in his Signing Statement that his disagree to it.

Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Defense Bill Signing Statement | Jamie Dupree Washington Insider
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 02:09 PM
 
The NDAA Explained: | Joanne Mariner | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

What is now known as Subtitle D of the NDAA—the section on detention—made its first appearance in March of this year. Called the Detainee Security Act in the House, and the Military Detainee Procedures Improvement Act in the Senate, the bills, introduced by Representative Buck McKeon and Senator John McCain
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 02:11 PM
 
You know, simply voting differently or switching party affiliation will not send a message to candidates about what exactly you're dissatisfied with. That's what letters are for. Everyone who objects to this legislation should write their congresspeople and the president and tell them you will vote against them because of this singular issue. (Find out before you send it whether they voted for or against it )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Extrapolating from those numbers they both would also have happened with a Democrat controlled House.
Over 97% of House Republicans voted for it.
About 51% of House Democrats voted for it.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Over 97% of House Republicans voted for it.
About 51% of House Democrats voted for it.
What percent of votes would be required to pass the bill?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What percent of votes would be required to pass the bill?
And, how much would the Democrat numbers go up in a Democrat controlled House?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And, how much would the Democrat numbers go up in a Democrat controlled House?
or go down, since so many decide to break ranks when that happens.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Over 97% of House Republicans voted for it.
About 51% of House Democrats voted for it.
And we're never going to have Congress be 100% Democrat, so the bill still passes even if fewer Democrats vote for it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 11:46 PM
 
US troops land in Israel?
DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security
Thousands of US troops began descending on Israel this week. Senior US military sources told DEBKAfile Friday, Jan. 6 that many would be staying up to the end of the year as part of the US-IDF deployment in readiness for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. They will be joined by a US aircraft carrier. The warplanes on its decks will fly missions with Israeli Air Force jets. The 9,000 US servicemen gathering in Israel in the coming weeks are mostly airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers.
The incoming American soldiers are officially categorized as participants in Austere Challenge 12, the biggest joint US-Israeli war game ever held.
The maneuver was originally designated Juniper Stallion 2012. However, the altered name plus the comment heard from the exercise's commander, US Third Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Gorenc, during his visit two weeks ago, that the coming event is more a "deployment" than an "exercise," confirmed that Washington has expanded its mission. The joint force will now be in place ready for a decision to attack Iran's nuclear installations or any war emergency.
Our sources disclose that it was decided at the last minute in Washington and Jerusalem to announce the forthcoming Austere Challenge 12 on Thursday night, Jan. 5, ahead of the bulletin released by Tehran about another Iranian naval exercise at the Strait of Hormuz to take place in February, although its 10-day drill in the same arena only ended Monday, Jan. 2.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2012, 02:31 AM
 
We want to deploy you to the Middle East, but you can drink and must fraternize with IDF hotties.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2012, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And we're off and running. The Imperial Machine won't stop.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Me neither, but I do think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who I would even consider trusting with the kind of power we've now given the President. They're certainly the only ones who seem at all likely to want to try and reverse this trend.
I'll address the Ron Paul piece as he's a candidate:

What has Ron Paul accomplished in his multiple terms? You might say the fact that he's written or sponsored zero bills that have ever passed into law is a good thing for a legislator interested in smaller government, but... what else do we have then to indicate whether or not he'd make an effective leader?

Well, for starters we have a man who has fought vehemently for term limits while long over-staying his own ideal. We have a man who in 2010 requested some 50+ earmarks totaling more than $398 million and in 2011 we have the "anti-military" Paul requesting more than $19 million for a naval training ship and the "anti-corporate" Paul requesting more than $18 million for the Matagorda Ship Channel. Hmm. Is this the "change we can believe in" thing again? Sure, he's great about breaking ranks with those evil Republicans and in fact was only one of four in the House this year to break ranks with Republicans on a pork moratorium.

Is $8 million for marketing wild shrimp in the Constitution? How about $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research? Or $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics? (suppose there's a possible shrimp lobby going on here?) How about reviving an old movie theatre that had been closed since 1977? $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley? $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”? He signed onto H.R. 1380 as a T. Boone Pickens measure asking Congress to create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for companies that buy and build vehicles that run on natural gas. Corporate subsidies? See I can't find these anywhere and was wondering if any of you strict Constitutionalists could help me out.

Otherwise, we're just replacing a young spendy ideologue with an old one.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What has Ron Paul accomplished in his multiple terms? You might say the fact that he's written or sponsored zero bills that have ever passed into law is a good thing for a legislator interested in smaller government, but... what else do we have then to indicate whether or not he'd make an effective leader?
An effective leader should be very good at golf. You know, instead of constantly tinkering with everything and causing shitstorms.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
He signed onto H.R. 1380 as a T. Boone Pickens measure asking Congress to create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for companies that buy and build vehicles that run on natural gas.
Tax credits, that's what it's all about, not subsidies. So it's tax-lowering. Who'd have expected Ron Paul to sign onto something which lowers tax?

I can't be arsed to go look at the rest, since I know you're a neocon (and don't want the balance upsetting) and I really can't be bothered with an argument about this.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'll address the Ron Paul piece as he's a candidate:

What has Ron Paul accomplished in his multiple terms? You might say the fact that he's written or sponsored zero bills that have ever passed into law is a good thing for a legislator interested in smaller government, but... what else do we have then to indicate whether or not he'd make an effective leader?

Well, for starters we have a man who has fought vehemently for term limits while long over-staying his own ideal. We have a man who in 2010 requested some 50+ earmarks totaling more than $398 million and in 2011 we have the "anti-military" Paul requesting more than $19 million for a naval training ship and the "anti-corporate" Paul requesting more than $18 million for the Matagorda Ship Channel. Hmm. Is this the "change we can believe in" thing again? Sure, he's great about breaking ranks with those evil Republicans and in fact was only one of four in the House this year to break ranks with Republicans on a pork moratorium.

Is $8 million for marketing wild shrimp in the Constitution? How about $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research? Or $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics? (suppose there's a possible shrimp lobby going on here?) How about reviving an old movie theatre that had been closed since 1977? $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley? $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”? He signed onto H.R. 1380 as a T. Boone Pickens measure asking Congress to create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for companies that buy and build vehicles that run on natural gas. Corporate subsidies? See I can't find these anywhere and was wondering if any of you strict Constitutionalists could help me out.

Otherwise, we're just replacing a young spendy ideologue with an old one.
Ron Paul's not perfect. And, if I'm being honest, I wouldn't really want to see him be president. However I do want to see him get the nomination, as I think and hope that it would be a wake up call for the Republican Party.

But, all that aside, I consider all of those issues to be vastly less important than the issue of civil liberties. On that issue, both parties have demonstrated that their mainstream politicians simply cannot be trusted. With Gary Johnson no longer in the GOP, Paul is the only candidate from either of the two major parties who even remotely appears to respect the necessity and importance of those liberties. As far as I'm concerned, that's the single most important issue. Abortion, public religion, gay marriage, &c. are all completely meaningless when we live in a society where the President can unilaterally declare you a terrorist suspect and throw you in jail for the rest of your life without trial.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
But, all that aside, I consider all of those issues to be vastly less important than the issue of civil liberties. On that issue, both parties have demonstrated that their mainstream politicians simply cannot be trusted. With Gary Johnson no longer in the GOP, Paul is the only candidate from either of the two major parties who even remotely appears to respect the necessity and importance of those liberties. As far as I'm concerned, that's the single most important issue. Abortion, public religion, gay marriage, &c. are all completely meaningless when we live in a society where the President can unilaterally declare you a terrorist suspect and throw you in jail for the rest of your life without trial.
Excellent points and truth be told, I had a little forum-vertigo as this belonged in the WTF Iowa thread.

In terms of civil liberties, you're not going to beat Ron Paul. The most contentious piece of NDAA of course is the statement under "Authorities" where it states that NDAA will not affect existing laws regarding arrest and detention of US citizens... which already existed from the Patriot Act. IMO, Ron Paul's problem here is not one of inconsistency as he likely would've opposed this measure regardless of the provisions including US citizens. While the Patriot Act is a popular punching bag (for many good reasons), it addressed important elements that contributed in part to the success of 9/11. Both the Patriot Act and NDAA go too far in their scope, but I couldn't trust Paul to have considered the important provisions of the Patriot Act either.

In other words, this puts Paul in a slightly different part of the same box as the others. I don't think Ron Paul expresses the civil liberties view in such a way that doesn't come off as bat-sh!t crazy. Ron Paul cannot beat Obama and Obama's got to go not only for this measure and the method of its passage, but the numerous others. We'd be better off hoping for another nominee and applying the necessary pressure to have that successor reopen this verbiage and get it fixed or eliminated.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
An effective leader should be very good at golf. You know, instead of constantly tinkering with everything and causing shitstorms.
That's just it smiley, tinkering would require a little thought, some leadership, and some additional effort. I could simply say "no" after everyone's post too and that would certainly be much easier, but I don't think I'd be contributing much to the discussion or persuading anyone to consider the merits of my point. Paul could be said to bring valuable discourse to the table of ideas from time to time, but he's the absolute last messenger I'd recommend for his message.

Tax credits, that's what it's all about, not subsidies. So it's tax-lowering. Who'd have expected Ron Paul to sign onto something which lowers tax?
No, it's called picking winners and losers and is no different than offering taxpayer-funded subsidies for failed solar panel ventures. It's precisely why we've got such a jacked up code to begin with.

I can't be arsed to go look at the rest, since I know you're a neocon (and don't want the balance upsetting) and I really can't be bothered with an argument about this.
If opposing Corporate welfare makes me a neocon, so be it.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We'd be better off hoping for another nominee and applying the necessary pressure to have that successor reopen this verbiage and get it fixed or eliminated.
Is that the president's job? I would have put that responsibility on congress or the courts. I foresee a campaign of constituents all pressuring their individual senators and representatives to get it reopened. What can a president really do, besides refusing to sign it (which we already missed)? I would think that voters have more leverage here than a president does.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Is that the president's job? I would have put that responsibility on congress or the courts. I foresee a campaign of constituents all pressuring their individual senators and representatives to get it reopened. What can a president really do, besides refusing to sign it (which we already missed)? I would think that voters have more leverage here than a president does.
Of course in the big scheme of things you're absolutely correct. These things are obviously not legislated (or amended for that matter) from the President's desk. However, the President has an important bully-pulpit for expressing the will of the people and normally in this instance Ron Paul would make a great champion of such principles except, IMO expressing viewpoints effectively is among Paul's greatest weaknesses; another aspect of leadership he's lacking.
ebuddy
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In other words, this puts Paul in a slightly different part of the same box as the others. I don't think Ron Paul expresses the civil liberties view in such a way that doesn't come off as bat-sh!t crazy. Ron Paul cannot beat Obama and Obama's got to go not only for this measure and the method of its passage, but the numerous others. We'd be better off hoping for another nominee and applying the necessary pressure to have that successor reopen this verbiage and get it fixed or eliminated.
I agree. I don't think that Paul would make a particularly good president. Although, at least leading up to the Iowa caucuses, he was the only GOP candidate that polls didn't indicate would lose to Obama in the general (dunno if that's changed since the last time I looked).

But, especially since it seems unlikely that any Republican is likely to beat Obama, I want Paul to win the primaries because of the effect that will have on the GOP. If nothing else, it should send a strong message to the party leadership that they're losing touch with their voters. If we're lucky, it will help push the party in the direction of actually supporting limited government like they keep claiming to.

Honestly, I consider the 2012 presidential election to be a lost cause, but I'm hopeful that it's not impossible to steer the GOP back onto a more reasonable path in the future. (And I'll hope for the same from the Democrats in 2015.)

My actual presidential vote will, almost certainly, go to Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Even if Ron Paul does get the nomination, I don't think that I could vote for him for President.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I agree. I don't think that Paul would make a particularly good president.
Good by whose standards ? From the view of

Constitution: very good
Civil liberties: very good
Wall Street cronies: very bad
Federal Reserve: very bad
Established political "elite": very bad

Seems to me Ron Paul is a choice candidate.

-t
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Good by whose standards ? From the view of

Constitution: very good
Civil liberties: very good
Wall Street cronies: very bad
Federal Reserve: very bad
Established political "elite": very bad

Seems to me Ron Paul is a choice candidate.

-t
That's because you're vastly oversimplifying the position of President and the political process in the US. Ron Paul doesn't play ball. This is why so many people (including myself) like him, but it's also why he couldn't be an effective president. I have no doubt that he would veto the hell out of just about every bill that crossed his desk and didn't meet his strict standards, and I think that would be awesome to watch. But even despite recent power grabs by the executive (and power grants to the executive by the legislature), the President of the United States really can't do that much on his own. Without the cooperation of Congress all he can do is veto bills and make changes to executive branch agencies.

He could, theoretically, enact a de facto legalization of marijuana by instructing the DEA to make it their lowest enforcement priority (as some cities and states have done with their police forces). Some executive agencies he could probably even disband altogether, as long as their existence isn't mandated by law. But he would be completely powerless to change the law without the cooperation of Congress, which he's unlikely to get even with a Republican majority (a majority which is unlikely to last long as the Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents will no doubt close ranks to protect their programs from the Ron Paul banhammer).

Besides that, there isn't much that he could actually accomplish. He certainly wouldn't be able to touch the Fed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 01:46 PM
 
I have to agree with nonhuman: it's not the task of the President to make laws, that's the duty of both houses of Congress. Since these houses are dominated by different parties, both, Democrats and Republicans share the blame for any shitty law that comes across the President's desk. So if you want politics to be more like the ones Ron Paul stands for, then more congress men like him should be elected.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
Well, yeah, I don't disagree with what both of you are saying.

What we need in ADDITION to Ron Paul as President is many Rand Pauls in the House and Senate.
And that's the tougher choice.


-t
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:05 PM
 
Sometimes I wonder if the outsized focus on the Presidency is actually an intentional misdirection so that we won't make changes where they're actually needed: Congress.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:13 PM
 
Interesting thought. I don't think the Presidency is overrated, given the veto powers.
That's exactly why you need someone like Ron Paul in that office - to keep Congress in check.

However, if you have Obama or Romney as president, they're going to try to outdo CONgress.

-t
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Interesting thought. I don't think the Presidency is overrated, given the veto powers.
That's exactly why you need someone like Ron Paul in that office - to keep Congress in check.

However, if you have Obama or Romney as president, they're going to try to outdo CONgress.

-t
That's true, but it's really Congress that screws things up. The Presidency is an inherently reactive position, there's really no ability to take initiative (except when it comes to the military, which certainly shouldn't be discounted or underestimated).

Presidents really don't do much of anything. They enact and sometimes block the initiatives taken by Congress.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,