Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

The New (and On Notice) Obama Thread

14041424446

Posts

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah honestly at this point sticking our fingers in our ears and going "LALALALALALA NO IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS I SWEARS!" There is always the issue of "When someone else is in charge this sets a dangerous precedent" but that's literally anything that Obama does, or hell any president, and I'd rather we set a dangerous precedent doing something good for undocumented workers than bad like allowing torture or warrantless wiretaps.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Harry Dresden
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    The precedent has already been set that an american citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and assassinated without any right of representation or even notice. After that, everything is pretty much chickenfeed.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The mistake is thinking a future Republican President will care whether there is a precedent or not.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    SyphonBlueGnome-InterruptusDracomicronHarry DresdenshrykeRchanenchrishallett83Stolls
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'd rephrase that, the mistake is assuming a future asshole POTUS, who decides to attempt to be a demagogue, will give a fuck about precedent.

    V1m
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    The precedent has already been set that an american citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and assassinated without any right of representation or even notice. After that, everything is pretty much chickenfeed.

    I'm having trouble thinking of any president in modern history (or any history, really) who wouldn't have set the same precedent were they in Obama's position and had the same opportunity.

    The only variable would be if the public was aware of the order or not.

    Not that it necessarily makes it ok (even though I do think it was the right call in that situation) but it's not like the precedent wouldn't be there otherwise.

    QuidSageinaRagejmcdonald
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    The precedent has already been set that an american citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and assassinated without any right of representation or even notice. After that, everything is pretty much chickenfeed.

    No, it hasn't.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shrykeSageinaRageAndy Joe
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    The precedent has already been set that an american citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and assassinated without any right of representation or even notice. After that, everything is pretty much chickenfeed.

    I still haven't got my answer to the question on why US passport should provide a magical shield vs hellfire missiles.
    Or bullets.

    SageinaRagejothkijmcdonaldAndy Joe
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Oh yay we're back to Obama takes too many vacations/isn't taking things seriously enough. This time brought about by a french politician complaining about Obama golfing. Seriously france? SERIOUSLY!?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Oh yay we're back to Obama takes too many vacations/isn't taking things seriously enough. This time brought about by a french politician complaining about Obama golfing. Seriously france? SERIOUSLY!?

    Yeah, that's the le creucet complaining of the kettle's insufficient albedo.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Geth
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Its such a dumb complaint in the modern world, like there are few places I as a regular citizen can go that I can't be instantly contacted and consulted. I imagine the president of the US has even less. And how dare he golf? Fuck you it takes like 4 hours out of his day and it helps him deal with all the bullshit, if anything he should golf more often, I'm sure it helps with the stress of being blamed for literally every problem in the entire world all the fucking time.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    It's because it's not a real 'murican vacation, like clearing brush

    steam_sig.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I ain't even opening the but bush line even though its completely valid (or the but reagan line to be honest), its a stupid attack absent any prior presidential action.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    The precedent has already been set that an american citizen can be stripped of his citizenship and assassinated without any right of representation or even notice. After that, everything is pretty much chickenfeed.

    Uh, not exactly.

    Andy Joe
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    Can we just say that the situation is a little more nuanced than that, and if really has to be discussed, I'm quite sure we've already got another goddamned thread to do that in?

    Diplominator
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I ain't even opening the but bush line even though its completely valid (or the but reagan line to be honest), its a stupid attack absent any prior presidential action.

    Technically Bush made a public point to show that he gave up golf in 2003 as an act of solidarity with deployed troops. Granted he didn't have much choice as the war wasn't going well, and golfing would have made for some pretty bad optics. I think part of the problem is that the great american vacation is effectively dead for most people, which makes it an easy mark for hacks and pundits to slag on Obama about, but the truth is, every future president is going to catch flack for taking a vacation, regardless of political party.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Bush also didn't give up golfing. And its a dumb attack on any politician, but especially the president when congress takes double the vaction and this congress hasn't even done half the god damn work.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    He also didn't actually do it.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    For the rich and powerful, golf is also an opportunity for networking/informal meetings. It's not just fun time.

    Harry DresdenTheBlackWind
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    He also didn't actually do it.

    Ha ha, I kind of assumed he didn't, just did it quieter, but was too lazy to google it before I wrote that comment.

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    For the rich and powerful, golf is also an opportunity for networking/informal meetings. It's not just fun time.

    Right, there isn't anything wrong with a president taking vacations or going to golf with people he needs to work with. Government is a system of human interaction, and its best if those people aren't stressed out 100% of the time and can be on amiable terms with each other.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    GethHarry Dresdenzagdrob
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I ain't even opening the but bush line even though its completely valid (or the but reagan line to be honest), its a stupid attack absent any prior presidential action.

    Technically Bush made a public point to show that he gave up golf in 2003 as an act of solidarity with deployed troops. Granted he didn't have much choice as the war wasn't going well, and golfing would have made for some pretty bad optics. I think part of the problem is that the great american vacation is effectively dead for most people, which makes it an easy mark for hacks and pundits to slag on Obama about, but the truth is, every future president is going to catch flack for taking a vacation, regardless of political party.

    Bush broke records being on vacation as president.
    For the rich and powerful, golf is also an opportunity for networking/informal meetings. It's not just fun time.

    With Romney I'd agree, with Bush he probably likes hanging out with his friends while he's drunk.
    Jephery wrote: »
    For the rich and powerful, golf is also an opportunity for networking/informal meetings. It's not just fun time.

    Right, there isn't anything wrong with a president taking vacations or going to golf with people he needs to work with. Government is a system of human interaction, and its best if those people aren't stressed out 100% of the time and can be on amiable terms with each other.

    When Bush was doing worse at this all we got was crickets from the right wing about that.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    That was the big irony of how people thought it'd be more fun to have a beer with GWB than with Al Gore.

    Also why Obama is occasionally painted an an alcoholic by the right wing noise machine.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Bush stopped drinking decades ago, IIRC.

    Although I'm pretty sure I remember seeing pictures of him at a baseball game late in his presidency drinking some mysterious beverage that sure seemed to be a beer.

    Dark_Side on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Bush stopped drinking decades ago, IIRC.

    Although I'm pretty sure I remember seeing pictures of him at a baseball game late in his presidency drinking some mysterious beverage that sure seemed to be a beer.

    They do make non-alcoholic beer


    for some reason

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    O'douls is an abomination, like it doesn't taste like beer, and it doesn't have alcohol, its like the worst of both worlds.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Capek wrote: »
    I think Chait makes a good point here.
    President Obama’s plan to effectively legalize millions of unauthorized immigrants, the outlines of which have been widely reported, rests on solid legal foundations. The legal basis for Obama’s plan is that the president has wide latitude to use the federal government’s scarce immigration law enforcement resources as he sees fit. Obama could announce that the president will stop pursuing some 5 million legal immigrants and grant them some kind of work visas. Having failed to persuade Congress to change the law, he will effectively have suspended it on his own.

    Ross Douthat argues that Obama’s reported action, while legal, is nonetheless unfair and sets a dangerous precedent. Douthat opposes the ends of Obama’s plan as well as its means. I fully support Obama’s immigration policy goals. But the defenses of Obama’s methods seem weak and short-sighted.

    To imagine how this method might be dangerous, you have to abstract it away from the specific end it advances and consider another administration using similar methods for policies liberals might not like. What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes? Or suspend enforcement of regulations on industrial pollution? Or laws on workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Don't have a separate legislative and executive branch. Problem fucking solved.

    shryke on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-nows-the-time-peace-and-calm-the-streets-ferguson

    I like how Obama is literally damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't to some people.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Geth
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-nows-the-time-peace-and-calm-the-streets-ferguson

    I like how Obama is literally damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't to some people.

    Fortunately, he chose neither.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Honestly as the president thats the route he has to take, as much as he personally probably stands with the protesters, he's also the head of the us government. Much like how he can't president on red state blue state lines.

    Also this is truly a state issue, I don't believe governor nixon has called for federal assistance and the president ignoring a state's own governance to order troops in would be a really bad thing, even if it was for a good reason.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-Interruptuszagdrobjmcdonald
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    Capek wrote: »
    I think Chait makes a good point here.
    President Obama’s plan to effectively legalize millions of unauthorized immigrants, the outlines of which have been widely reported, rests on solid legal foundations. The legal basis for Obama’s plan is that the president has wide latitude to use the federal government’s scarce immigration law enforcement resources as he sees fit. Obama could announce that the president will stop pursuing some 5 million legal immigrants and grant them some kind of work visas. Having failed to persuade Congress to change the law, he will effectively have suspended it on his own.

    Ross Douthat argues that Obama’s reported action, while legal, is nonetheless unfair and sets a dangerous precedent. Douthat opposes the ends of Obama’s plan as well as its means. I fully support Obama’s immigration policy goals. But the defenses of Obama’s methods seem weak and short-sighted.

    To imagine how this method might be dangerous, you have to abstract it away from the specific end it advances and consider another administration using similar methods for policies liberals might not like. What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes? Or suspend enforcement of regulations on industrial pollution? Or laws on workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Don't have a separate legislative and executive branch. Problem fucking solved.

    At least we're better off than Australia, Canada, and the UK at the moment. All our right wing can do is howl impotently and obstruct, their right wings can actually implement policy.

    Hopefully that does not change in 2016...

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Geth
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Honestly as the president thats the route he has to take, as much as he personally probably stands with the protesters, he's also the head of the us government. Much like how he can't president on red state blue state lines.

    Also this is truly a state issue, I don't believe governor nixon has called for federal assistance and the president ignoring a state's own governance to order troops in would be a really bad thing, even if it was for a good reason.

    Like what happened in Arkansas in the 50s?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Edith Upwards
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Jephery wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Capek wrote: »
    I think Chait makes a good point here.
    President Obama’s plan to effectively legalize millions of unauthorized immigrants, the outlines of which have been widely reported, rests on solid legal foundations. The legal basis for Obama’s plan is that the president has wide latitude to use the federal government’s scarce immigration law enforcement resources as he sees fit. Obama could announce that the president will stop pursuing some 5 million legal immigrants and grant them some kind of work visas. Having failed to persuade Congress to change the law, he will effectively have suspended it on his own.

    Ross Douthat argues that Obama’s reported action, while legal, is nonetheless unfair and sets a dangerous precedent. Douthat opposes the ends of Obama’s plan as well as its means. I fully support Obama’s immigration policy goals. But the defenses of Obama’s methods seem weak and short-sighted.

    To imagine how this method might be dangerous, you have to abstract it away from the specific end it advances and consider another administration using similar methods for policies liberals might not like. What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes? Or suspend enforcement of regulations on industrial pollution? Or laws on workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Don't have a separate legislative and executive branch. Problem fucking solved.

    At least we're better off than Australia, Canada, and the UK at the moment. All our right wing can do is howl impotently and obstruct, their right wings can actually implement policy.

    Hopefully that does not change in 2016...

    That's cause they don't control the legislature either. And even without that, they are fucking you hard. When they did control the legislature, they fucked you even harder then they are now.

    But all that is irrelevant to the point, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

    To get to the real point, the whole source of this problem is that the people who pass legislation and the people who are in charge of enforcing it are completely separate. The division within the government's structure opens up HUGE avenues for abuse. Whether or not Obama goes through with this doesn't change anything, because the power is always there.

    shryke on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Angel that's not a fair comparison at all and you know that, but you want to be all absolutist here.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Angel that's not a fair comparison at all and you know that, but you want to be all absolutist here.

    Why isn't it a fair comparison? If Nixon wanted to dither, why shouldn't the President step in to protect the rights of Americans?

    (Thankfully, Nixon did finally do something.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Widespread civil rights violations are a little different than another sorrowful example of racial profiling from the police in a town.

    I mean did you want bush to send in the national guard during the la riots?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-nows-the-time-peace-and-calm-the-streets-ferguson

    I like how Obama is literally damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't to some people.

    Fortunately, he chose neither.
    Obama wrote:
    Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority

    I'm sorry Mr.President, but since when have people in positions of authority ever been held accountable, except when their fuck ups threatened those even higher up than the fuckup? Even then its not being held accountable, its a sacrificial lamb.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Nixon was held accountable, at least as far as being removed from office. Jersey has had a bunch of politicians do perp walks, hopefully adding another real soon.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nixon was held accountable, at least as far as being removed from office. Jersey has had a bunch of politicians do perp walks, hopefully adding another real soon.

    Resigning isn't being held accountable. He was given a get out of jail free card by Ford and allowed to live how he liked after stepping down, at best it's a slap on the wrist. He wasn't even put on trial for his crimes.

    Harry Dresden on
    DacTL DR
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Nixon was held accountable, at least as far as being removed from office. Jersey has had a bunch of politicians do perp walks, hopefully adding another real soon.

    Resigning isn't being held accountable. He was given a get out of jail free card by Ford and allowed to live how he liked after stepping down, at best it's a slap on the wrist. He wasn't even put on trial for his crimes.

    Well...he was issued a pardon. I mean, I understand the issues and think Ford made a huge mistake in doing so, but I'm not going to undermine the foundation of the Presidential Pardon system over Nixon.

    And I will argue that there are circumstances where - regardless of a governor's wishes - the President should order in troops. The Civil War was one case, as were Ike sending troops to Little Rock / LBJ sending troops to Montgomery.

    Things in Ferguson could potentially reach that point shortly where Obama would be in the right to order in troops. We aren't at that point yet and that should be a last resort - Nixon (Missouri Nixon) deserves an opportunity to evaluate and respond to the situation. I don't think he has moved fast enough, but a case can be made that the situation hasn't / hadn't escalated to the point where calling in National Guard is a necessity until recently.

This discussion has been closed.