• 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

I think Obama picked her because of her experience as a prosecutor.

After Holder announced his resignation the White House started looking for a black woman to replace him. Not a really awesome prosecutor who would faithfully execute the duties of the office in a politically neutral way in order to de-partisanize the department. Their qualification was black female.
 
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.

I don't know. We'll see how she holds up under questioning. It would be interesting if this turned out to be the Obama Administrations' Harriet Meiers.
 
Most of that I agree with, but in perspective, it was the opposite when the circumstances of my parentage allowed me a first class American education, from fifth grade on we learned about the Bill of Rights, how the land was "discovered" and the west was "won", a highly skewed John Wayne version of events. But, they taught us too well, when guys like me started asking where was the constitutionality of forcing people into slavery called military service when they have no right to vote they started handing out detentions, which was really stupid because that only annealed our resolve, just as lobbing tear gas did.
We became a questioning society and were branded all sorts of ****, "hippies", "yippies", "long hairs", "queers" and of course "lefty pinkos"...

I watched the film "Joe" not too long ago, with Easy Rider and Kent State thrown in you get the idea.

What we really were was defenders of the constitution and the right to live free. we were the embodiment of Vermont's license plate "Live Free or Die". And we seriously questioned the John Wayne Story, especially after the Pentagon Papers were published, a copy of which lies on my desk to this day, a reminder that anything any government says is suspect and when it comes to war, a probable lie.

We found out that America wasn't "discovered" after all, a guy named Lief Erikson beat him too it and old Chris from which much of the US get its name was 12,000 miles off course and nowhere near where he said he was, resulting in the native being misnamed as "Indians" when India is half a world away.

We learned that the west was not "won" but ****ing stolen, and that the last righteous war, a legitimate case of defense and liberation of many various peoples was probably the last righteous war and that when the bullets start flying, truth starts dying.

All that was righteous and reasoned, truth in fact. A truth Nixon had to face. But it was not learned. I suspect because that naive push back caused by irrational high school detentions was hijacked by agenda-fed idealogues from the far left to the dark and violent, we had our "mojo" ripped off by the likes of clown acts like the Symbianese Liberation Army and some morons who think a brainless and failed philosophy requiring all things to be surrendered to the state is the road to utopia. But, they are not the "left" of my generation who got their heads beat revealing that anything government cannot on its own be trusted; they will lie, cheat, steal, beat, jail and ultimately kill if they have to.

Today, the "left" are a bunch of has-beens wallowing in slogans and fighting ancient fights like higher minimum wage and free money called "assistance" while wiping their asses with what was once the finest legal document in the known universe, the United States Constitution. They have no concept of "rights" as individuals but surrender all such identity in a clamoring mob whose main tool is shouting down any and all opponents and turning their leaders into demons or, in the tragic case of the great demon Sarah Palin, "sluts", "bimbos", and "whores", while going into hysterics over the fact she actually has a family that is still together and actually talks to one another. Shame.

The result is what I post almost daily, the nation reels in cheap, tawdry, ineffective ideological image making while the real issues, crime, break down of family, drugs, school drop outs, the real problems get completely ignored.

In the real world, a misfit country like Canada should be the one with the problems, ****, 30% of the population aren't even signatories to the constitution, half of them have been threatening to quit for four decades and our political system appoints members of the Senate, they aren't even elected. The United States, as I NEVER tired of pointing out has faced and beaten every obstacle it has faced and they have been mightier than almost every nation. Born out of war against the mightiest power on earth, faced them again later to a draw, fought the deadliest civil war in history. When you remove the moral judgments, which are worthy of discussions, the US is indestructible...at least from the outside.

The problems you face can be solved, but not when there is a wall running down the middle of the country that would dwarf the Berlin wall....a wall in my opinion the left in America need to stay powerful for as soon as true "liberal" thinking arrives, both left and right have to open their close minds and ask if there isn 't merit in what they thought had none before. And while I repeat, the American left and I have little in common politically, I suggest the right is more capable of thinking "parachute mind", as in it only works if its open.

Good post, a Canadians view of the US over time really adds some insight. I agree the real issues go unaddressed, with any attempt at rational discussion shot down by hissers and spitters.

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”


― George Orwell
 
We have had the same issues here, as when turn out drops into the 70's the limited thinkers, usually the left start talking about making a law and forcing people to vote. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all solutions involve nails and the left has only force.

Having said that, there is no easy solution. In taking part in the above debate I wrote that if politicians want people to change their schedule, go out of their way and go into a polling station and mark it with a pencil [we do that here - the most trusted way] then they should have something worth selling. if all their doing is spewing party line, then their a lamp post that talks and I have better things to do...like writing essays about lamp post politicians and asking really, really rude questions as at all candidates meetings. But in the end, if none of them meets the minimum requirement, then no. What I did in the last federal election was work for an independent because I was bored, but we had an impact, the other slobs started having to talk about what we were talking about...that's the start.

And I agree, but I always think of this one candidate I covered in the late 70's. He was a Roman Catholic Priest who ran for the New Democratic Party nomination - left, leftists who hate God etc. and won. He won the riding against odds and served one term in Parliament. In an interview I asked him if his success was divine intervention. He replied immediately, "No, a lot of hard work and sweat. But you know what? I learned something the first day. I asked people to help me and they did. Most of them said they had never been asked by the candidate today.

Part of the US problem is the system. Who in the US can expect to be able to shake a presidential candidates hand? Here, we all can and often do.

Back in the 1960's when we only had one day to vote, election day and it was done on paper ballots with pencil voter turn out was above 60% in presidential elections with a high of 65%. Even midterm elections was close to 50%. Now some states have 6 weeks to vote, some mail in ballots, all sorts of laws has been passed to get people to the polls. But usually less than 55% vote in presidential elections and around 35-38% in midterms.

Why? Who knows. We have bent over backwards to get people to the polls, to make voting as easy as it can get, yet less people vote as a percentage than in the election before it seems. My son never voted, the reason: He says Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want. Maybe that has something to do with it, at least it is one reason why he doesn't vote.

Perhaps another is the hate filled campaigns, the mud slinging, they say it works this negative advertisement. I suppose it does for those who get so mad at one or the other candidate and go vote. But I think it also drives some people away. Why vote for devil A or for devil B. You're doing nothing but electing a devil.

You have a choice between 5 parties however they chose their candidate and I bet usually one of them comes close to your political ideals. Here, we have two parties. Their candidates are chosen in Primaries where less than 10% of the people vote in them. If you are not a Republican or Democrat, in most states you have no say whom they will choose. Your left in November with a choice they provide you. What if you do not like either candidate? You either hold your nose and vote for the least worst candidate in your opinion, but you know your still voting for a bad candidate. Or you stay home.

The two parties have moved so far left and right they have left the majority of Americans without a political party home. So people vote left to kick the bums of the right out in 2006. Then they vote right to kick the bums of the left out in 2010, then left again in 2012 and right again in 2014. Yeah they end up kicking the bums out, but more bums take their place. Bums with political party agendas that do not listen to the people.

We elected a Democratic president and congress in 1992 and then turn around and give him a Republican congress to work with when we get made at him. We elect a Republican president in 2000 with a Republican congress and then when we get mad at him we give him a Democratic congress. In 2008 we elect a Democratic president and congress again, only to give him a Republican House in 2010 and now a Republican Senate when we get mad at him.
 
Back in the 1960's when we only had one day to vote, election day and it was done on paper ballots with pencil voter turn out was above 60% in presidential elections with a high of 65%. Even midterm elections was close to 50%. Now some states have 6 weeks to vote, some mail in ballots, all sorts of laws has been passed to get people to the polls. But usually less than 55% vote in presidential elections and around 35-38% in midterms.

Why? Who knows. We have bent over backwards to get people to the polls, to make voting as easy as it can get, yet less people vote as a percentage than in the election before it seems. My son never voted, the reason: He says Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want. Maybe that has something to do with it, at least it is one reason why he doesn't vote.

Perhaps another is the hate filled campaigns, the mud slinging, they say it works this negative advertisement. I suppose it does for those who get so mad at one or the other candidate and go vote. But I think it also drives some people away. Why vote for devil A or for devil B. You're doing nothing but electing a devil.

You have a choice between 5 parties however they chose their candidate and I bet usually one of them comes close to your political ideals. Here, we have two parties. Their candidates are chosen in Primaries where less than 10% of the people vote in them. If you are not a Republican or Democrat, in most states you have no say whom they will choose. Your left in November with a choice they provide you. What if you do not like either candidate? You either hold your nose and vote for the least worst candidate in your opinion, but you know your still voting for a bad candidate. Or you stay home.

The two parties have moved so far left and right they have left the majority of Americans without a political party home. So people vote left to kick the bums of the right out in 2006. Then they vote right to kick the bums of the left out in 2010, then left again in 2012 and right again in 2014. Yeah they end up kicking the bums out, but more bums take their place. Bums with political party agendas that do not listen to the people.

We elected a Democratic president and congress in 1992 and then turn around and give him a Republican congress to work with when we get made at him. We elect a Republican president in 2000 with a Republican congress and then when we get mad at him we give him a Democratic congress. In 2008 we elect a Democratic president and congress again, only to give him a Republican House in 2010 and now a Republican Senate when we get mad at him.



All of those reasons are correct, and I will add ennui and a sense of world weariness. Look at Obama. He attracted a huge base of voters who had never voted before and now? Angry and disillusioned again by empty promises and lies.

At the time and still sometimes, the left comes at me for pointing out "the lie", "if you can keep your plan...." But when you consider a political science fact, that less than .3% of the population will ever tell anyone why they didn't vote that lie stands as a crucible. The new Obama wave crashed and died on that lie.

The two party system isn't really a two party system as they really aren't any different, the money pretty much comes from the same place and "follow the money is the greatest if not only truth to come out of Watergate. But it is the myth of a two party system that is killing you. For the record the difference in platforms between Obama and Romney was about 2% according to some analysts.

What else I see wrong is the declaration of either Democrat or Republican when registering. True I guess you can say "independent", but to me declating anything ios a violation of my secret ballot right. It's stupid and only feeds the big machinery.

For the bold, there is a message there for anyone willing to analyze the results. Americans have no trouble giving their faith to a president, but after a few years they tell him "cool it"....

They don't want runaway policies., To me they are screaming "work together you assholes" but the politicos only hear "war!"

Change comes by degrees and is usually the result of a small group of people who have no hope of success. In the last provincial election we went up against the old guard, the tried and true party hacks who had been rotting like a corpse and stole the nomination simply by selling memberships and getting more people to the nominating meeting than they did. We won by about 325 to 220. It was supposed to be hopeless, but we though "what's to lose?"

We lost to the incumbent party in a socialist riding...but we narrowed the margin of victory and let them know they were in a fight. I have had two winners working as a writer and that one loss. The loss, going from three people to winning the nomination in a losing fight was the most fun I've had with my clothes on in a good 15 years.
 
All of those reasons are correct, and I will add ennui and a sense of world weariness. Look at Obama. He attracted a huge base of voters who had never voted before and now? Angry and disillusioned again by empty promises and lies.

At the time and still sometimes, the left comes at me for pointing out "the lie", "if you can keep your plan...." But when you consider a political science fact, that less than .3% of the population will ever tell anyone why they didn't vote that lie stands as a crucible. The new Obama wave crashed and died on that lie.

The two party system isn't really a two party system as they really aren't any different, the money pretty much comes from the same place and "follow the money is the greatest if not only truth to come out of Watergate. But it is the myth of a two party system that is killing you. For the record the difference in platforms between Obama and Romney was about 2% according to some analysts.

What else I see wrong is the declaration of either Democrat or Republican when registering. True I guess you can say "independent", but to me declating anything ios a violation of my secret ballot right. It's stupid and only feeds the big machinery.

For the bold, there is a message there for anyone willing to analyze the results. Americans have no trouble giving their faith to a president, but after a few years they tell him "cool it"....

They don't want runaway policies., To me they are screaming "work together you assholes" but the politicos only hear "war!"

Change comes by degrees and is usually the result of a small group of people who have no hope of success. In the last provincial election we went up against the old guard, the tried and true party hacks who had been rotting like a corpse and stole the nomination simply by selling memberships and getting more people to the nominating meeting than they did. We won by about 325 to 220. It was supposed to be hopeless, but we though "what's to lose?"

We lost to the incumbent party in a socialist riding...but we narrowed the margin of victory and let them know they were in a fight. I have had two winners working as a writer and that one loss. The loss, going from three people to winning the nomination in a losing fight was the most fun I've had with my clothes on in a good 15 years.

On our two party system it has been put two way: 1. There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and 2. In the United States you have but one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the Democratic wing.

And yes you are right about the money, many corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist etc donate to both parties. Oh they usually give the incumbents more money than the challengers, but that is because the incumbent usually wins. As for registration, in Georgia one just registers to vote, there is no party affiliation. I like that. Registration via party down here is for use in primary elections in those states that have closed primaries.

Change, back in the 90's I worked hard for change. I worked for Ross Perot. It was quite a battle. Ross told me something that guides me now, he said: Take a couple of steps backwards and put cotton or ear plugs in your ears to drown out the rhetoric. Just watch how the two parties govern and you will see they basically govern the same. It is only the rhetoric that is polar opposites.

He was right.
 
Oh. Well I think you are a fool :).

I'm sure you can find lots of black women who meet the minimum qualifications of the job. The problem being that that is the standard this adminsitration looks for, rather than looking for the person who would be best at the job.

I believe anyone Obama picks you will have a problem with, part of who you are.
 
I believe anyone Obama picks you will have a problem with, part of who you are.

I think it has more to do with Obama's track record of appointing incompetent people.

Lynch was originally appointed by Clinton, very likely an affirmative action appointment. She was fired by G.W. Bush who had many smart highly qualified and competent blacks working with in his administration, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, etc.
 
Change, back in the 90's I worked hard for change. I worked for Ross Perot. It was quite a battle. Ross told me something that guides me now, he said: Take a couple of steps backwards and put cotton or ear plugs in your ears to drown out the rhetoric. Just watch how the two parties govern and you will see they basically govern the same. It is only the rhetoric that is polar opposites.

He was right.

I voted for Perot. Have always wondered what it would have been like having him as president. He was point on with that observation.
 
They are no more incompetent than the fools that Bush appointed. If there was a Republican in the White House you'd be applauding their work.

When it comes to the Office of Attorney General, I agree. Bush's appointees shredded the Constitution and then pissed on it for all intents and purposes
 
Did you know that except for SCOTUS judges, the senate rule change on filibusters only applied to federal judge nominations?

The repubs could still block her nomination.

Did you know that you're wrong?

Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid altered the chamber’s filibuster rules in late 2013, the Republicans can’t use the filibuster to block an Attorney General nominee during that time period

How the Senate will confirm a new Attorney General


The simple fact of the matter is this: Senate Republicans can holler about how President Obama will be ramming his pick through a lame-duck Senate, but venting is just about all they'll be able to do about it. In a sense, the battle over a new AG was fought a year ago, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules for executive-branch nominations.



Because of his trigger of the so-called "nuclear option," there will be no possibility of a GOP filibuster of Obama's pick. And all it will take to confirm his choice will be a simple majority vote.


GOP Can't Stop a Lame-Duck Attorney General Pick - NationalJournal.com
 
I believe anyone Obama picks you will have a problem with, part of who you are.

:shrug: not really. I don't have a particular problem (for a single example) with General Dempsey. My problem is that the selection process for critical posts should not be driven by race and gender.
 
I think it has more to do with Obama's track record of appointing incompetent people.

Lynch was originally appointed by Clinton, very likely an affirmative action appointment. She was fired by G.W. Bush who had many smart highly qualified and competent blacks working with in his administration, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, etc.

"Black person got hired by a Democrat? Must be affirmative action!"

-A person who probably thinks he isn't being racist.
 
Did you know that you're wrong?

Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid altered the chamber’s filibuster rules in late 2013, the Republicans can’t use the filibuster to block an Attorney General nominee during that time period

How the Senate will confirm a new Attorney General


The simple fact of the matter is this: Senate Republicans can holler about how President Obama will be ramming his pick through a lame-duck Senate, but venting is just about all they'll be able to do about it. In a sense, the battle over a new AG was fought a year ago, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules for executive-branch nominations.

Because of his trigger of the so-called "nuclear option," there will be no possibility of a GOP filibuster of Obama's pick. And all it will take to confirm his choice will be a simple majority vote.


GOP Can't Stop a Lame-Duck Attorney General Pick - NationalJournal.com

That must explain why there's so many of Obama's nominations getting passed in the senate......not.

Republicans Still Find Ways To Stall Judicial Nominees Despite Filibuster Reform
 
That must explain why there's so many of Obama's nominations getting passed in the senate......not.

Republicans Still Find Ways To Stall Judicial Nominees Despite Filibuster Reform

An article from February from Huffpo, which you didn't even read.

Harry Reid controls the Senate. He can bring anyone up for a vote. The Republicans can't stop it. They've can't filibuster. All Reid needs is a simple majority. Reid has not brought them forth for a vote. You only have Harry Reid to blame.

Next time know the facts of how they vote on things in the Senate.
 
On our two party system it has been put two way: 1. There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and 2. In the United States you have but one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the Democratic wing.

And yes you are right about the money, many corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist etc donate to both parties. Oh they usually give the incumbents more money than the challengers, but that is because the incumbent usually wins. As for registration, in Georgia one just registers to vote, there is no party affiliation. I like that. Registration via party down here is for use in primary elections in those states that have closed primaries.

Change, back in the 90's I worked hard for change. I worked for Ross Perot. It was quite a battle. Ross told me something that guides me now, he said: Take a couple of steps backwards and put cotton or ear plugs in your ears to drown out the rhetoric. Just watch how the two parties govern and you will see they basically govern the same. It is only the rhetoric that is polar opposites.

He was right.




That's good advice. When you recognize rhetoric for what it is, the bull**** seems to float to the surface. When our prime minister speechifies about "family values" and the need for "security", he's actually talking about tough law and order legislation not financial security, which is mere rhetoric aimed at the ed neck crowd who refuse to admit that the crime rate is tanking, a fraction of what it was even ten years ago. To date this year the Vancouver Metro area, 3.5 million people has had six homicides.
 
Care to explain "heck of a job, Brownie"?

If you want me to.

heck

exclamation
expressing surprise, frustration, or dismay.

interjection
1.
(used as a mild expression of annoyance, rejection, disgust, etc.):
What the heck do you care?
 
If you repeal the 17th amendment the selection of senators goes back to the state legislature. In other words Section 3 Article I would go back to being in effect. It states: The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state chosen by the legislature thereof.

In other words senators wouldn't be voting the party line anymore. They would be voting the wishes of each state legislature and the people of those states. It would make party affiliation less meaningful. The Senate was suppose to represent the states, not the political parties. The people have the House of Representatives or the peoples house.

The majority party in the state legislator would choose the senator. That would make the senator more dependent on the party and its established leadership and less dependent on the approval of the state's residents. It would only make things worse.
 
Authoritarians from both ends of the spectrum might like stop and frisk. Libertarians oppose it. As usual, the Bill of Rights is on the side of the libertarians.

I have never heard of a consistent liberal supporting stop and frisk. For example, the recently elected Mayor of NYC was popular for opposing it and has worked to end the practice. In my liberal leaning city, our centrist Mayor floated the idea of using stop and frisk and the idea was quickly shot down by liberals.
 
Back
Top Bottom