http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b04f9b57d83008
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/li...nd-healthcare/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...-doesnt-add-up
And those are just the liberal links I found. Is Bernie stupid, or is he lying?
I agree - although I would say Bernie is possibly as bold-faced in the scope of his misrepresentations of what he can/will do - neither is playing by "the rules"; and it's working for them.
This guy has a take on Trump's shtick, and why he's having success with it:
http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/donald-...ew-way-to-win/
If this keeps up, btw, I think we could very well end up with a President Bloomberg.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm
President Bloomberg
point well made. I think Sanders is committed to his bull though. He is just fuzzy on the deets, or hasn't had someone sit him down and realistically step him through it. This would make things a lot like the pledge to close Gitmo. Easier said than done.Senator Sanders is committed to accomplishing the goal of the United Stares not having more people in jail than any other. During his first hundred days, he will appoint a commission of criminal justice experts, leaders in the African American, Hispanic, and Native American communities, and others who have had success on the local level in reducing the number of young adults going to jail and in transitioning people out of prison to other settings.
The Sanders Administration will rely on both legislative and executive actions to reorient the criminal justice system. What the campaign has done is lay out just some elements of what those actions would be. We envision this commission would propose even more.
My question, is why aren't Republican candidates talking about prison reform? One would hope that billions in unnecessary government spending would be a GOP priority.
The differences here, is that Democrats have some ideas, even if they are ill-formed or even bad. What does the GOP offer in response?
"ISIS bad!" ?
"obamacare booga booga, bargle!" ?
(edit)
Some republicans, to their credit are talking about prison reform. Just not the ones on national stage.
Better than the current crop, IMO. We could do worse, and the GOP seems set on giving us that.
Not someone I would vote for tho.
I was laughing at the suggestion that it could ever happen. Obviously he's sane, so he'd be better than any of the current GOP crop. But there's no possible way he's going to win a 3rd party bid.
An interesting reflection on Justice Scalia's originalism and the issue upon which his devotion to originalism would have been set aside in order to achieve the right result. So, even the standard bearer for "originalism" (a term used frequently by modern conservatives when discussing Cons utional matters, but rarely with fidelity to Justice Scalia's actual approach) recognized that there are times when originalism should be disregarded to achieve the right result:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...alia-1936-2016
Kasich is a reasonable voice; has (relatively) moderate views on most issues (not a particularly high bar), but is completely drowned out by the louder voices on stage and TV. Those voices do not care about prison reform, nor, ostensibly, do the voters in the Republican primaries. His "on the issues" report cite positions he took in the mid-nineties, when "law and order" positions were all the rage (see Horton, Willie).
I've sent him some money - he's "establishment", but he's better than the other choices at this point.
With Trump leading, and continuing to lead it is obvious that a large swath of Republican voters don't share my concerns or vision of what I want a president to be. Neither, however, do either of the Democrats, whose concepts of what a government should be and do are fundamentally at odds with what I believe. There's no way I vote for Trump, Clinton, Cruz or Bernie, regardless of who their opponent is - I will not affirm any of those people to be my president. Rubio and Bush are puppets, and will give us more of the same with different rhetoric and window dressing, but I could hold my nose and vote for them as a "not the opponent" gesture.
So if he concedes flexibility at all, doesn't that necessarily mean original ism doesn't exist. A truly slippery slope, that he apparently recognized, given his reticence to discuss bvbe.
I don't dispute that there can be an originalist approach to cons utional interpretation, but I think his reluctance on Brown means that originalism can't be used in every cir stance if you have any concern at all for achieving actual justice.
The broader point to me is that many who revere Scalia's originalism today wouldn't be as content with its limits or its results as he was. The piece points to Texas v. Johnson, a case that he frequently cited in justifying his philosophy, explaining that he could maintain the integrity of originalism while not always being happy with the results it compelled. I don't know that many who claim to subscribe to Scalia-ish originalism today would be as content as he was with the result that Johnson produced (striking down flag desecration statutes) -- though to be fair, I'm less certain that the Antonin Scalia of the 2010's would have reached the same result as the Antonin Scalia of the 1980's and 1990's.
It is indisputable that he has more business experience than all the others. I am under no disillusion as to who or what Trump is - I'm not expecting him to even build a wall much less have Mexico pay for it or deport 11 million illegals. He is the anti-thesis of almost everything I believe in BUT he has the one skill and experience that might pull this country from the financial disaster it's heading toward. Something none of these politicians have - business sense. All these things both sides fight over pales in comparison to having a JOB where one can provide one's own food, housing, healthcare, education, etc.
They all lie (Carson less so in this area) - even Bernie - if his fans think that rich people have enough money to support all he wants - they don't - it'll be the middle class again who shoulders most of the burden. If he tries to tax the rich as high as he wants, do you think they are going to stay here in the US. They will do what all the companies who did tax inversion do - leave for lower taxes.
I'd like to be so bankrupt as to be flying around the country in a plane with my name displayed on the side.
Leading businesses to bankruptcy
Nothing is ever 100% - whether it's brain surgeries, businesses, stock picks, etc - some are winners and some are losers - 4 bankruptcies among many businesses is not bad. Obviously, his winners have overshadowed his losers.
Always enlightening to read your takes. Thanks.
Nice to have an actual conversation about something insightful.
THATS RIGHT!
Delicious irony.
Unsurprisingly, Carson admits that obstruction isn't about tradition; if a Republican were in the White House, an election year wouldn't furnish a basis to delay an appointment in his eyes:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...scotus-nominee
Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson conceded in a recent interview that he didn't think the GOP would stall potential Supreme Court nominees if their own party controlled the White House.
Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates called on the Senate to not confirm any nominee to replace him until after the 2016 election. In an appearance on South Carolina radio station WRNN, Carson was asked if the presidential candidates on Saturday’s debate stage would have the same position if a Republican controlled the Executive branch.
“No, they wouldn’t,” Carson replied, according to audio flagged Tuesday by BuzzFeed News.
"Recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there’s really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn’t be an ideologue also," Carson added.
Carson said he that he thought the nation's highest court has become a "political tool" and suggested lifetime appointments should be reexamined.
And LOL the idea that President Obama's appointments are just ideologues, but Justice Scalia wasn't.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 02-16-2016 at 04:29 PM.
On that score, gotta hand it to Bernie.It’s the same for the huge tariffs on Chinese imports and so on: Politicians never deliver everything they promise, but the higher they aim, the more likely you’ll actually get something.
did he say scalia wasn't?
Yes, Obama Could Appoint a Scalia Replacement Today
The conservative freak-out over the president's recess appointment power is legitimate.
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia came at an inopportune moment for conservatives, all but guaranteeing that the liberal side will prevail on a number ofhot-button cases before the Supreme Court right now. But some conservatives are fretting that the timing might be far more dangerous than that, allowing President Barack Obama to bypass the Republican-controlled Senate and make a recess appointment to fill Scalia's seat.
"He could appoint [Vice President Joe] Biden tonight if he wanted to," a senior GOP Senate aide told the Washington Examiner over the weekend.
Although the president is extremely unlikely to make a recess appointment in the next few days (a White House spokesman even ruled out the possibility on Sunday), the hand-wringers on the right do have a point. Between now and 3 p.m. EST on Monday, February 22, Obama could fill Scalia's seat with a recess appointment.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...lacement-today
If I were Barry listening to Repugs SWEARING NEVER to approve his SCOTUS appointee(s), I'd 'em all hard and do the recess appointment this week.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-16-2016 at 06:02 PM.
Rick Wiles: Obama Killed Scalia As A Pagan Human Sacrifice
esterday on “Trunews,” End Times radio host Rick Wiles discussed “the possible occult connections” to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he concluded was murdered by President Obama and was a human sacrifice to mark the pagan festival of Lupercalia.
Wiles explained that the “Luciferian” “devil-worshipers” who control the government are out for blood, noting that Lupercalia is observed between February 13 and 15. Scalia’s body was discovered on the 13th. “There’s always human sacrifice involved,” he said, claiming that Scalia was “killed” to mark the beginning of pagan fascism ruling over the U.S.
“The 13th was the 44th day of 2016, Obama is the 44th president of the United States,” Wiles said, “so you have this numerology thing taking place.”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-wiles-obama-killed-scalia-pagan-human-sacrifice
Before Scalia’s Death, a Clash Between G.O.P. and Obama Over Appellate Judges
Since Republicans took control of the Senate in January 2015, the process that would enable Mr. Obama to fill vacancies on the 12 regional federal courts of appeal has essentially been halted. Mr. Obama has managed only one appointment because Republican senators have refused to sign off ahead of time on nominees for judgeships in their states — a traditional step before a president makes a nomination.
In the weeks before Justice Scalia’s death, influential conservative groups and commentators called on Senate Republicans to ensure that Mr. Obama appointed no more appeals court judges.
Among those commentators was Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia and a prominent blogger. He said in an interview Monday that conservatives could not compromise over any appointments to the upper ranks of the judiciary — including the appeals courts, which get the last word on matters the Supreme Court does not review and often serve as a breeding ground for future justices.
“This fight has been fought by both sides for decades,” Mr. Whelan said.
“Conservatives believe with good reason that liberal judges will twist the Cons ution and statutes to reach whatever result they want.”
Just as there is no precedent for leaving a Supreme Court seat open because it is an election year, as Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, vowed to do hours after Justice Scalia’s death was announced, there is also none for virtually shutting down the appointment of new appeals court judges so early.
Each of Mr. Obama’s predecessors since Ronald Reagan also faced a Senate controlled by the opposing party, yet they appointed between 10 and 18 appellate judges in their last two years in office.
But history is no longer a guide in a polarized Washington, where partisan warfare over judicial nominations has been escalating for more than a generation.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16...dges.html?_r=1
Barry MUST do a recess appointment this week and the Repugs.
His problem for 7 years is that he and Dems play softball and Repugs play hardball.
Time for Dem HARD ING BALL
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-16-2016 at 06:19 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
