My wife ordered a “Virginians for Obama” t-shirt from the Obama web store. It said it would take 2-3 weeks for delivery, and it’s been three weeks. My wife was a little sad about not receiving it yet this morning, so I told her, “Honey that’s just what Obama does: he promises to do something and then he doesn’t deliver.”
John Shot First
Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire, Doctor Who, Star Wars, Libertarian politics, and Live Music. And cycling. Lots of cycling.
-
Today, President Obama announced sweeping set of policies, including 23 executive orders, aimed at reducing gun violence. The unveiling was the result of the Joe Biden-led task force Obama formed last month in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, and proposed policies include an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and improved access to mental health care. The Washington Post calls it “the most expansive gun-control policies in a generation,” and the fact that the president issued no less than 23 executive orders suggests that he wants to avoid congress as much as possible with this (which, given his first term, is understandable). Here’s the flashy White House document outlining the proposals, here’s a list of the executive orders (one of which, somewhat amusingly, is “Nominate an ATF director”), and here’s audio of the event (courtesy of Matt Keys). Photo credit: AP source
Regardless of your stance on gun control, we’re supposed to live in a country where we have checks and balances against one man telling everyone what to do. If the president can just ban things on a whim, what the hell is the point in even having a congress?
-
-
I don’t normally post this stuff but this got my blood boiling really quickly. This is the most evidence I’ve seen for condemning the Republican Party for their lack of principles. It’s disgusting. H/T Brian
I think the Republican party could be fractured significantly if they lose this election (which I think is also likely).
(via libertarians)
-
Electoral College Model Predicts Romney Win
what if i told you guys he and barack obama are almost literally the same candidate
and that obama is also very, very similar to bush
I would tell you that you are literally completely wrong.
And that while I disagree with Obama on the invasive foreign policy actions he has taken - namely drone strikes and failing to close down Guantanamo - I simply cannot afford Romney’s domestic policy. My body is not up for grabs with an Obama presidency. My insurance doesn’t discriminate against me with an Obama presidency. My ability to take legal action against an employer who subjects me to pay discrimination on the basis of my gender doesn’t disappear with an Obama presidency.
If none of those things are important for you, by all means, vote for Romney. Vote for a third party. Don’t vote at all. But they are matters of life and death for me, and I do not take this civic duty lightly.
If one more person says this crap, I will scream
They are NOT the same candidate. Obama is not perfect, but as said above, many of us have a hell of a lot to lose should Romney win. So if you’re gonna sit back and not vote or vote for a 3rd party when people are depending on Obama to win in order for them to stay healthy, housed, and alive? Then fuck you.
You wanna reform our political process? Feel free. I’m all for it! But start from the ground and move UP. The presidential election, especially this one, is not the place to start and you throwing your vote away helps NO ONE.
Before I really get into my opinions on all this, let me list the factual similarities between Obama and Romney in the powers they will actually be able to wield as President:
1. Both support military action in Syria.
2. Both support military action in Iran.
3. Both support an increase in military spending (the only disagreement is in how much of an increase is appropriate).
4. Both support the continued drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan that have so far been responsible for killing over 2500 people.
5. Both support continued spying on American citizens.
6. Both support continuing the drug war, which is responsible for the US having more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world.
7. Both support drones flying over American cities.
8. Both support the continued operation of Guantanamo.
I would list more, especially as it applies to economics, but I said only the powers they will actually be able to wield as President. Here is the only factual difference between the two:
1. Romney would likely enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, whereas Obama has ceased that enforcement.
That’s it. Everything else listed in the posts above are NOT powers of the President of the United States. Sure, Romney may support banning of all abortions in the US, but he has literally no power as President to stop them (I’m not sure if he actually does, just using an example). In the same respect, Obama has no power to legalize gay marriage across the country (nor do I think he would really want to). All of the things listed above that are so important to the two commenters are functions of the US Congress.
I welcome any comments on the above.
Now, as for my opinions on the matter…
Within the next three years there will be an attack on Iran. There will only be a difference on how it plays out depending on who is in power. If Obama wins the election, the attack will likely be billed as an Israeli attack with ally assistance, de-emphasizing the American involvement. If Romney wins, it will be an American attack in partnership with Israel. But there will be little difference between the two other than the rhetoric.
Regardless of who is elected we will be militarily involved in Syria within the next two years.
Both of these scenarios are UNACCEPTABLE to me. And since both major party presidential candidates support them I cannot support either of the candidates.
Also, to stfusexists, who said “But they are matters of life and death for me”, check your god-damned privilege. The people who are killed overseas by our drone strikes and military action? They are the ones who actually have life and death consequences in this election. Your perceived discrimination that may or may not take place based on our sitting President is not a matter of life and death, and fuck you for equating the two. What actually could be a matter of life and death in this election are the domestic drug and law enforcement policies of the candidates, but since they’re both the same for Obama and Romney it really doesn’t matter which one you pick.
Also, depending on how the next few months plays out, we could see something extremely interesting happen in this election. Gary Johnson had massive bi-partisan support in New Mexico during his two terms as Governor. There is a chance that he could win the state of New Mexico. And if that happens, there is a chance that neither Obama nor Romney would have the electoral votes to win the presidency. That is something I’d really like to see.
(via kathrynbegins)
-
(Source: justinu84, via capitalismconcarne)
-
Congress on pace to be least productive since 1947
- 61 the number of bills that have become law to date in 2012
- 3,914 the number of bills that have been introduced by lawmakers
More from usatoday: These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President Truman called the “do-nothing Congress” in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show. (More: http://usat.ly/ObJQKP)
P.S.: Thanks usatoday for writing a post that we could so easily short-formify!
This makes no sense. We are expected to judge Congress by how many laws they pass? So new laws just continue to be added in perpetuity so that Congress can appear to be productive? Is there never a time where we can be content with the current laws (not to mention start rolling a lot of them back)?
Mind-numbingly dumb.
-
Let’s Brainstorm Better Questions for the Presidential Debates
- If you were convinced that sending special forces on a mission inside a foreign country would improve national security, but Congress disagreed after deliberating on the matter, and voted to prohibit you from dispatching troops before you had the opportunity to do so, would you disobey the legislature and issue the “go” order anyway? Or would you conclude that you’d been lawfully overruled, even though, in your opinion, canceling the mission would harm national security?
- The Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Would you each describe in detail what you think “due process” requires specifically? Does it apply to “persons” who are accused of terrorism?
- If an aide to a previous president came to you with clear evidence that his or her boss had broken the law while in office, would you pledge to order an investigation? Would you permit that president to serve time in jail if convicted, or would you pardon him?
- Would you each sketch out your notion of when it is permissible for the federal government to spy on American citizens without a warrant?
- The CIA has participated in some horrific abuses in the past that only came to light years after the fact. If you’re president in 2013, how would you prevent new abuses from happening on your watch?
BUT THEN HOW WILL WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF CELL PHONE THEY PREFER AND IF THEIR WIVES COOK WELL???!!!!!
Give the debates back to the League of Women Voters and stop letting the political parties run them, and we may actually see questions like this again.
Why did the League of Women Voters stop hosting the debates? According to their press release in 1988:
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates…because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
(From Wikipedia)
(Source: azspot)
-
Do rape victims or other people suffering with PTSD have any rights, or is it the usual ‘if you don’t like it, don’t fly!’ bull?
— The husband of a rape victim who ended up in the hospital after an invasive TSA pat-down resulted in vomiting and extreme anxiety. Full story here. (via hipsterlibertarian) -
Political Ads
Watching tv and an ad came on for George Allen (Republican candidate for US Senate from Virginia). In it, he claimed his opponent spent his last term in government spending wastefully and growing the government, and that if elected he would keep taxes low and government small. As soon as it ended, an ad for Tim Kaine came on (Democrat candidate for US Senate in Virginia). He claimed the exact same things.
Since they both can’t be right, they’re both liars and don’t deserve your vote. Screw ‘em.
-
Petition the U.S. Government to Force the TSA to Follow the Law
This is important:
In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using “Advanced Imaging Technology” for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this “promptly.” A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to “body-scan” Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered.
The petition needed 150 signatures to go “public” on Whitehouse.gov (currently at 296), and needs 25,000 to require a response from the administration. You have to register before you can sign, but it’s a painless procedure. Basically, they’re checking that you have a valid e-mail address.
(via Bill Schneier)
Not sure a “We The People” petition on whitehouse.gov has ever achieved anything other than a canned response from the administration, but this is something I think every political persuasion can agree with. Just go sign it.
(Source: schneier.com)
