Scratch two Dem candidates off the list - Page 3

Undertoad · 07-31-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vsp

And since I don't foresee either one happening, I think my money is safe.

Sorry v, the quarterly GDP growth number reported today was 2.4% annual. This is a pretty good number and certainly not recession.

Unemployment for July comes out tomorrow; unemployment is the last thing to recover, but it's considered a "lagging indicator", basically because employers turn on hiring late in a recovery when they're sure things are going well.

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 09:30 AM

And now it's tomorrow and unemployment is reported to be down.

Care to make a wager on WMDs? Yesterday the guy who runs the program hunting for them said that they now have proof of weapons programs, as well as proof of programs to deceive the UN weapons inspectors. (Those who have always wanted to discredit Powell's UN speech... you lose again.)

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who is normally more sensible about such things, insisted harshly that a program is different from actual weapons.

From a political point of view, this is really utterly stupid. But from the point of view of reality, where politics doesn't matter as much, this is really utterly mind-bogglingly stupid.

Griff · 08-01-2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Isn't he John now?

warch · 08-01-2003, 10:13 AM

Hey finger waggler, as someone who has express doubt, mistrust, and anger, I'll admit I'm critical of Bush. His various courses of action have disturbed me, not because I'm rooting for more catastrophe, I want things to get better. I mean, really long term better- Thus the critical attention, healthy skepticism and caution. And I applaud those willing to voice their doubts and call the administrators on what they say and what they do. Thats the only way I think we'd learn anything.

I hope they DO find something to help build a stronger case for the preemptive strike that is now so firmly on the books. I want the peaceful rebuilding of Iraq. I want the job loss to stop. I want to control spending, protect human rights, and I want to see the balance of government work. I want the queasy doubt to go away.

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 10:27 AM

John might be his actual name, but he goes by Jay.

If I'm waggling, it's just because I want the Ds to run their best politically-viable candidate. I think the country is far better served by a 51-49 outcome than a 60-40 outcome, no matter which side wins. I understand the Dean phenomenon, but I think he's a 60-40 outcome a la McGovern.

Personally I think right now my vote would go Lieberman first, then Bush, then Edwards, then Kerry, then Dean, then the pack. It is thrilling to be an independent swing voter. I admit my biases here so that y'all can judge what I say based on it.

D, I understand the reluctance wrt Lieberman and censorship completely, it's just that I think he'd be mostly harmless in that regard. All the candidates have something wrong with them.

warch · 08-01-2003, 10:40 AM

Why do you think the country would be far better served by a 51-49 outcome?
I think the Ds should run their best candidate, the one who best represents the concerns of the people. I know. Thinking like a loser, but a loser that can get or keep some issues on the table.

Griff · 08-01-2003, 10:55 AM

Nat Hentoff wants this issue on the table. Is there a candidate will put it there?

Judge Diane Motz's dissenting opinion:
For more than a year, a United States citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, has been labeled an enemy combatant and held in solitary confinement in a Norfolk, Virginia, naval brig. He has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. The Executive [the president] will not state when, if ever, he will be released. Nor has the Executive allowed Hamdi to appear in court, consult with counsel, or communicate in any way with the outside world.

I fear that [this court] may also have opened the door to the indefinite detention, without access to a lawyer or the courts, of any American citizen, even one captured on American soil, who the Executive designates an 'enemy combatant,' as long as the Executive asserts that the area in which the citizen was detained was an 'active combat zone,' and the detainee, deprived of access to the courts and counsel, cannot dispute this fact.

Hamdi was picked up in Afghanistan but Nat's point is that defining a war zone in a war on terror is a very flexible thing.

You can call me JaySupposedly, he's moving toward John as part of a VP bid.

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 11:05 AM

Well again it's all personal bias. The thing I fear most is that Bush wins 60-40 because of national security concerns (because the voters find the D's foreign policy anti-American), and then takes that to mean he has a mandate to implement the conservative side of the culture war.

I think that, in a 50-50 world, Junior nominates another David Souter to the Supreme Court. That's what Bush Senior did. But in a 60-40 world, he has less fear of political repercussions and nominates someone Pat Robertson approves of.

warch · 08-01-2003, 11:28 AM

Eeww. I see your concern.
Still, I'd love to see a great leader on all war fronts, one to inspire progress.
(Boy!, I am idealistic, eh? Maybe its the whole Seabiscuit thing... I confess I liked and still like Jimmy Carter.)

elSicomoro · 08-01-2003, 12:30 PM

Did I not call it, Griff?

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 12:57 PM

Regarding Hamdi, I'm not sure I get it; if he's charged under US law, wouldn't he'd be charged with treason, and then be put to death?

Griff · 08-01-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Regarding Hamdi, I'm not sure I get it; if he's charged under US law, wouldn't he'd be charged with treason, and then be put to death?

After this quaint little series of events we like to call due process, like talking to a lawyer, getting a trial ...that kind of stuff.

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 02:27 PM

Do you think the military would be unable to make its case to any jury of Americans or any judge in an American court?

Griff · 08-01-2003, 03:23 PM

They probably could show intent, unfortunately, they have not had the opportunity to prove their case.

This is important beyond Hamdi's particular case. If, as Hentoff believes, Ashcroft would define American soil as a war zone anybody labeled as an enemy combatant could be held indefinitely with no legal recourse.

We've faced down graver threats than these and yes we have suspended habeas corpus before, however, the suspension was found unconstitutional after the war. The War on Terror can be continued forever. There is no enemy capital to overrun. Our very act of fighting it will create new pockets of terrorists so the war continues as long as we care to fight it and the illegitamit power seized by the Bush administration stays in place.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

All the candidates have something wrong with them.

That is a classic.

08-01-2003, 10:55 AM	#37
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Nat Hentoff wants this issue on the table. Is there a candidate will put it there? Judge Diane Motz's dissenting opinion: For more than a year, a United States citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, has been labeled an enemy combatant and held in solitary confinement in a Norfolk, Virginia, naval brig. He has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. The Executive [the president] will not state when, if ever, he will be released. Nor has the Executive allowed Hamdi to appear in court, consult with counsel, or communicate in any way with the outside world. I fear that [this court] may also have opened the door to the indefinite detention, without access to a lawyer or the courts, of any American citizen, even one captured on American soil, who the Executive designates an 'enemy combatant,' as long as the Executive asserts that the area in which the citizen was detained was an 'active combat zone,' and the detainee, deprived of access to the courts and counsel, cannot dispute this fact. Hamdi was picked up in Afghanistan but Nat's point is that defining a war zone in a war on terror is a very flexible thing. You can call me JaySupposedly, he's moving toward John as part of a VP bid. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

08-01-2003, 03:23 PM	#44
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	They probably could show intent, unfortunately, they have not had the opportunity to prove their case. This is important beyond Hamdi's particular case. If, as Hentoff believes, Ashcroft would define American soil as a war zone anybody labeled as an enemy combatant could be held indefinitely with no legal recourse. We've faced down graver threats than these and yes we have suspended habeas corpus before, however, the suspension was found unconstitutional after the war. The War on Terror can be continued forever. There is no enemy capital to overrun. Our very act of fighting it will create new pockets of terrorists so the war continues as long as we care to fight it and the illegitamit power seized by the Bush administration stays in place. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

08-01-2003, 09:30 AM	#32
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	And now it's tomorrow and unemployment is reported to be down. Care to make a wager on WMDs? Yesterday the guy who runs the program hunting for them said that they now have proof of weapons programs, as well as proof of programs to deceive the UN weapons inspectors. (Those who have always wanted to discredit Powell's UN speech... you lose again.) Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who is normally more sensible about such things, insisted harshly that a program is different from actual weapons. From a political point of view, this is really utterly stupid. But from the point of view of reality, where politics doesn't matter as much, this is really utterly mind-bogglingly stupid.

08-01-2003, 10:13 AM	#34
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	Hey finger waggler, as someone who has express doubt, mistrust, and anger, I'll admit I'm critical of Bush. His various courses of action have disturbed me, not because I'm rooting for more catastrophe, I want things to get better. I mean, really long term better- Thus the critical attention, healthy skepticism and caution. And I applaud those willing to voice their doubts and call the administrators on what they say and what they do. Thats the only way I think we'd learn anything. I hope they DO find something to help build a stronger case for the preemptive strike that is now so firmly on the books. I want the peaceful rebuilding of Iraq. I want the job loss to stop. I want to control spending, protect human rights, and I want to see the balance of government work. I want the queasy doubt to go away.

08-01-2003, 10:27 AM	#35
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	John might be his actual name, but he goes by Jay. If I'm waggling, it's just because I want the Ds to run their best politically-viable candidate. I think the country is far better served by a 51-49 outcome than a 60-40 outcome, no matter which side wins. I understand the Dean phenomenon, but I think he's a 60-40 outcome a la McGovern. Personally I think right now my vote would go Lieberman first, then Bush, then Edwards, then Kerry, then Dean, then the pack. It is thrilling to be an independent swing voter. I admit my biases here so that y'all can judge what I say based on it. D, I understand the reluctance wrt Lieberman and censorship completely, it's just that I think he'd be mostly harmless in that regard. All the candidates have something wrong with them.

08-01-2003, 10:40 AM	#36
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	Why do you think the country would be far better served by a 51-49 outcome? I think the Ds should run their best candidate, the one who best represents the concerns of the people. I know. Thinking like a loser, but a loser that can get or keep some issues on the table.

08-01-2003, 11:05 AM	#38
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well again it's all personal bias. The thing I fear most is that Bush wins 60-40 because of national security concerns (because the voters find the D's foreign policy anti-American), and then takes that to mean he has a mandate to implement the conservative side of the culture war. I think that, in a 50-50 world, Junior nominates another David Souter to the Supreme Court. That's what Bush Senior did. But in a 60-40 world, he has less fear of political repercussions and nominates someone Pat Robertson approves of.

08-01-2003, 11:28 AM	#39
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	Eeww. I see your concern. Still, I'd love to see a great leader on all war fronts, one to inspire progress. (Boy!, I am idealistic, eh? Maybe its the whole Seabiscuit thing... I confess I liked and still like Jimmy Carter.)

08-01-2003, 12:30 PM	#40
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Did I not call it, Griff?

08-01-2003, 12:57 PM	#41
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Regarding Hamdi, I'm not sure I get it; if he's charged under US law, wouldn't he'd be charged with treason, and then be put to death?

08-01-2003, 02:27 PM	#43
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Do you think the military would be unable to make its case to any jury of Americans or any judge in an American court?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)