• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

Um.... didn't you read the part about how she is a black woman? In this administration, those are the credentials that she needs.



Remember, in order to make sure we carry forward the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr, it's important that we continue to judge people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or their particular abilities to do a job well or impartially.



I don't believe that MLK ever said anything like that.
 
It is so hard to really read what one's thoughts are behind their actions . I would find it hard to believe that after reading her credentials he missed the part she was black. Or he simply thought she would be a good mix regardless of her skin color.
The same question can be raised at election of the Utah congresswoman Mia Love. Was she voted because she was indeed black which would allow Republicans bragging rights to say they have a black congresswoman in all white Utah? Or simply she would be a breath of fresh air rather than the same old sold out politicians. Who knows, perhaps a little bit of both.

You're comparing an appointment by one man, who has not only shown a bias in the past, but is the same skin color, with an election at state level by a majority of the available vote of presumably mixed demographics and skin color.

That's just misleading.

Face it, the stance of "innocence" about Obama is gone, you cannot play that fiddle and expect anyone to dance. The man is a cold-hearted politico who would slice his grandmother from asshole to earlobes for a 2% increase in the polls.
He lied about Iraq and created a new war. he lied about Obamacare and caused suffering to 27 million Americans. He has never accepted responsibility for one thing that's gone wrong, and is grudgingly observant of the fact he has just been handed the single most humiliating mid term defeat in modern history.

His cabinet is loaded with with toadies and lickspittle lackies, yes people and angry blacks.

Frankly, after the heightened racial tensions of the last few years, and the deepened chasm of suspicion and hate fostered by his administration , the man is an idiot to appoint another black. It shows once again he is distant, out of touch with the nation, stubborn and self centered.

There's a reason he didn't announce this before the vote.....because he would have lost even more votes and the son of a bitch knew it and did it anyway.
 
Those grapes must be very sour.

I don't see why the grapes would be sour. I do, however, see why someone would comment on the advantage given to those measurably less qualified by giving them points on the LSAT.
 
So who is she? What are her credentials? Why is she the best person for this job?

The "right wing congress" isn't the subject of this thread.



She is the person that Obama has selected to fill the job and she is certainly qualified for it.
 
That's fine. She will follow in Holder's footstep thinking the AG position is to protect and defend the administration instead of being the head lawman of the country. The name doesn't matter who occupies the position, this is just the way it is. It has been that way more or less depending on the president and the person who occupies the position since at least RFK was JFK AG.

Appoint her and move on. Whoever occupies the AG position is going to do whatever the president wants anyway.



Which is why John Mitchel went to prison I think.

My how things have changed. A Republican white guy used his AG for his own political protection and one went to prison, the other driven from office, but Obama gets to mull over whether to nominate now or after the new opposition comes in.

Personally, as a journalist during the Watergate Era, I cannot help but feel that America has lost its last, best chance at redemption and that now all is lost....From this date forward presidents will all be able to hail these precedents and become petty dictators with pens and phones and gulags
 
Which is why John Mitchel went to prison I think.

My how things have changed. A Republican white guy used his AG for his own political protection and one went to prison, the other driven from office, but Obama gets to mull over whether to nominate now or after the new opposition comes in.

Personally, as a journalist during the Watergate Era, I cannot help but feel that America has lost its last, best chance at redemption and that now all is lost....From this date forward presidents will all be able to hail these precedents and become petty dictators with pens and phones and gulags

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

If that happens, and I really hope it doesn't, it will prove why Diogenes gave up his search for an honest man! Ironic how those old tales teach a lesson that few choose to learn, until it's too late! :shock:
 
Which is why John Mitchel went to prison I think.

My how things have changed. A Republican white guy used his AG for his own political protection and one went to prison, the other driven from office, but Obama gets to mull over whether to nominate now or after the new opposition comes in.

Personally, as a journalist during the Watergate Era, I cannot help but feel that America has lost its last, best chance at redemption and that now all is lost....From this date forward presidents will all be able to hail these precedents and become petty dictators with pens and phones and gulags

Exactly, what the Obama supporters and most Democrats do not realize is once a precedence is set, is done then the other guy and the other party will use that precedence. They, being Obama supporters and Democrats expect that only their guy can do what he did. Whether it is going to war in Libya without congressional approval, a future Republican president can cite the same precedence. Reid's nuclear option precedence, one would be a fool if they don't think McConnell in the upcoming session won't use it to get something he wants passed, passed. Even if the Democrats are filibustering it. He can cite Reid's precedence. Executive orders which defy the law, like not deporting illegals which the law plainly states must be departed or ignoring laws one does not like and only enforcing the ones you do.

The AG is another example. People use to talk about Nixon and the Imperial Presidency. Obama has made Nixon look impotent. Whomever and from whatever party the next president will continue to amass power. Congress is too weak and partisan to stop it. At one time members of congress regardless of party took pride in being members of congress and would act to stop any and all usurpation of their power. Today, when Obama takes power from congress, the Democrats in Congress act like they are part of the Obama administration instead of congress and let him do it, defend him in doing and willing cede their power to him. The Republicans would do the same if the president was a Republican. Congress is becoming more and more irrelevant and the president more like a King everyday with congress being his serfs.
 
Don't know anything about her, but
it's hard to imagine we could get a worse AG than Holder.
Though, Obama is great at picking incompetent people. How hard is it to pick someone that will uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce laws?



I find it very hard to imagine that the USA will ever have a worse AG than Alberto Gonzales.
 
Is this really a difficult concept to grasp? She stated that it's a tool that has its uses, but can also be abused, therefore, the usefullness and appropriateness is largely dependent on the officer in questions's motives.
Simple stuff really
.



It's not just what you do, it's how and why you do it.
 
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

If that happens, and I really hope it doesn't, it will prove why Diogenes gave up his search for an honest man! Ironic how those old tales teach a lesson that few choose to learn, until it's too late! :shock:

So refreshing to have you refer to a classic in modern debate...and you are, or course correct.

The shame though resides in the voters. America was given a gift in the Vietnam war and Watergate, combined events that at the time many felt verged on destroying the country. As Neitchze mused, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and those events should have. Instead, the truism of "history ignored is history repeated".

I hope I am wrong too.
 
Covered by the Patriot Act I guess.

Or, according to Lynch "logic", they are done by (always right?) federal agents rather than (sometimes wrong?) local gov't police. ;)
 
Exactly, what the Obama supporters and most Democrats do not realize is once a precedence is set, is done then the other guy and the other party will use that precedence. They, being Obama supporters and Democrats expect that only their guy can do what he did. Whether it is going to war in Libya without congressional approval, a future Republican president can cite the same precedence. Reid's nuclear option precedence, one would be a fool if they don't think McConnell in the upcoming session won't use it to get something he wants passed, passed. Even if the Democrats are filibustering it. He can cite Reid's precedence. Executive orders which defy the law, like not deporting illegals which the law plainly states must be departed or ignoring laws one does not like and only enforcing the ones you do.

The AG is another example. People use to talk about Nixon and the Imperial Presidency. Obama has made Nixon look impotent. Whomever and from whatever party the next president will continue to amass power. Congress is too weak and partisan to stop it. At one time members of congress regardless of party took pride in being members of congress and would act to stop any and all usurpation of their power. Today, when Obama takes power from congress, the Democrats in Congress act like they are part of the Obama administration instead of congress and let him do it, defend him in doing and willing cede their power to him. The Republicans would do the same if the president was a Republican. Congress is becoming more and more irrelevant and the president more like a King everyday with congress being his serfs.



And wait for the howl of protest when the next Republican president say, jails illegals based on Obama's precedents of pardons? Based on what I have seen in the debate with Obama, it will be ugly.
At one time members of congress regardless of party took pride in being members of congress and would act to stop any and all usurpation of their power.

There was a day when members, Senators too would vote their conscience or for their constituents and against their president. As you point out those days are dead. And that's what makes congress impotent. As we discussed earlier too, it is not by chance. As congress after congress has voted to protect themselves and their careers, they have systematically eroded their own power.

This is one of the reasons I hail the Tea Party. As repulsive as many of their policies are to me, they represent a return to the democracy borne in the minds of the founding fathers. Americans don't understand the first Continental Congresses....there were no "parties" in fact they foresaw and planned for one only. There were 'blocs' and allegiances and so forth. And the result was compromise. When we were in high school getting this constitution business drilled into our brains, the word "compromise" was prominent, even the single answer to many a test question.

By demonizing their opponents and the theatre and drama that goes with it, we can no longer have compromise. Since, if they are "enemies', then of course everything about them simply has to be pure evil...let's face it, in US politics the opposing team only has idiots, no talent.

In the end, you miss out on good government and get arbitrary government, administrations that lurch from one problem to another with no real plan, no vision. There simply isn't resources to deal with that, there's too much energy going into making the other guy look evil
 
Is this really a difficult concept to grasp? She stated that it's a tool that has its uses, but can also be abused, therefore, the usefullness and appropriateness is largely dependent on the officer in questions's motives. Simple stuff really.

Motives which can be determined just how? I can assure you that is, indeed, difficult stuff - really. Have you not been paying attention to Ferguson? What, exactly, were that officer's motives?
 
And wait for the howl of protest when the next Republican president say, jails illegals based on Obama's precedents of pardons? Based on what I have seen in the debate with Obama, it will be ugly.


There was a day when members, Senators too would vote their conscience or for their constituents and against their president. As you point out those days are dead. And that's what makes congress impotent. As we discussed earlier too, it is not by chance. As congress after congress has voted to protect themselves and their careers, they have systematically eroded their own power.

This is one of the reasons I hail the Tea Party. As repulsive as many of their policies are to me, they represent a return to the democracy borne in the minds of the founding fathers. Americans don't understand the first Continental Congresses....there were no "parties" in fact they foresaw and planned for one only. There were 'blocs' and allegiances and so forth. And the result was compromise. When we were in high school getting this constitution business drilled into our brains, the word "compromise" was prominent, even the single answer to many a test question.

By demonizing their opponents and the theatre and drama that goes with it, we can no longer have compromise. Since, if they are "enemies', then of course everything about them simply has to be pure evil...let's face it, in US politics the opposing team only has idiots, no talent.

In the end, you miss out on good government and get arbitrary government, administrations that lurch from one problem to another with no real plan, no vision. There simply isn't resources to deal with that, there's too much energy going into making the other guy look evil

Well said. I agree. Every thing today is party line votes. Like you I remember a time if something passed the senate by a 55-45 margin the breakdown might be something like 35 Democratic and 20 Reublican Yeas, 20 Democratic 25 Republican Nays. Today we do not vote for a Representative to represent us or a senator to go to Washington to represent our state. We vote for a Representative and a Senator to go to Washington to represent the party they are a member of. The will and wishes of the people and of the state they are from is lost.

I see no hope of respecting the wishes of the people who elect these officials to ever take them into consideration. It is all party.
 
Um.... didn't you read the part about how she is a black woman? In this administration, those are the credentials that she needs.



Remember, in order to make sure we carry forward the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr, it's important that we continue to judge people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or their particular abilities to do a job well or impartially.

The only good thing about this sort of **** is that they can only pull it once.

Hopefully it will stop being a thing before we reach the point where the news is making a big deal about the "first transgender Filipino state senator of Wyoming."

So tiresome. Who cares? Their qualifications and their public statements matter, that **** does not. To hell with identity politics.
 
Get ready for a firestorm from the right wing congress. Or maybe they'll let this one slide so it won't be so obvious that they still will not work with the president.

I think that would be the best strategy for the GOP to take.:) If she is qualified, let her have the job.
 
Well said. I agree. Every thing today is party line votes. Like you I remember a time if something passed the senate by a 55-45 margin the breakdown might be something like 35 Democratic and 20 Reublican Yeas, 20 Democratic 25 Republican Nays. Today we do not vote for a Representative to represent us or a senator to go to Washington to represent our state. We vote for a Representative and a Senator to go to Washington to represent the party they are a member of. The will and wishes of the people and of the state they are from is lost.

I see no hope of respecting the wishes of the people who elect these officials to ever take them into consideration. It is all party.

For that same reason I don't want to see either party in control of the two houses and white house. That would just be too much absolute power.
 
For that same reason I don't want to see either party in control of the two houses and white house. That would just be too much absolute power.

You had that from January 2009 to January 2011. I agree with you, it is better if at least one chamber of congress is held by the party that does not have the white house. But in the past having one party control both chambers of congress and the presidency happened quite often.

but you did not have an imperial presidency like you have today.
 
Umm.. you have to ask? The timing is interesting, isn't it? Let's wait until after the election, but before the new Senators are sworn in.



Sure. If the Democrats are in charge, stop and frisk is just hunky dory, never mind the Constitutional issues. If Republicans are in charge, then it is obviously racist, as most of those being frisked are black.

Does anyone but me find it humorous that her name is Lynch?

Many centrists and most conservatives support stop and frisk. Liberals oppose it.
 
Motives which can be determined just how? I can assure you that is, indeed, difficult stuff - really.

Internal review and external oversight, the same methods with which we determine whether or not police abuse has occurred in other cases :shrug: You and others seem determined to turn a simple statement into some sort of shadowy racial conspiracy. Not exactly surprising though.

Have you not been paying attention to Ferguson? What, exactly, were that officer's motives?

Not even chasing that tangent.
 
Back
Top Bottom