I don't think it's necessarily voting against, just voting without the clear knowledge of what the interests of the state are. Should they do polling before every vote and then always side with the majority? That's basically direct democracy, and very different than our government was intended.

I'm not ridiculing anyone in LA. My point is that nobody is going to be persuaded to vote D because of a meaningless symbolic vote on an issue that already has a clear champion in the Republican candidate. Is there a single voter that cares enough about Keystone that they'll switch their vote or vote when they were planning not to because of symbolic support for pipeline approval?

So it won't help in LA, but will put markers on the rest of the Dem senate that can be used later, and contradicts the position of the leader of the party. Brilliant.

True incompetence. If there was a plan to it, presumably we'd have seen some return on Harry Reid's hopelessness over the past years.

As I said before, Democrats have a problem (and yes, I speak as a Democrat) where we tend to run candidates who are wonks, activists or "third way" charisma-less types. Oh, and I guess DINOs like Manchin, too.

I think Keystone in Louisiana is just an example. It would obviously benefit them (jobs, etc), I believe, but they are not allowed to be a proponent because it conflicts with party politics and other state's desires? I agree that it is not settled but it seems at times that it comes down to the issues - ie, some should bend to the will of the majority while others should not.

The bill stopping NSA metadata collection was killed yesterday. Noted freedom lover and civil libertarian Rand Paul voted against passage.

So how should we know whether it's cool to vote with your party or your majority constituents or your personal beliefs? Seems like no matter which you chose, someone will be critical of such and will show up in attack ads.

In other news, Keystone XL failed to pass the Senate. I wonder how Mary Landrieu feels now?

Apparently the project, if it's ever given the green light, will create "massive" amounts of jobs, according to the GOP. By which they mean 42,000 very temporary construction jobs and less than 50 new permanent jobs.

Unless I've missed something, Keystone XL doesn't touch Louisiana at all, per the current plan.

You mean like all those temporary construction jobs that were created in that massive stimulus package of 2009?

aren't all construction jobs, by their very nature, temporary?

In this case Paul has made so many public statements about NSA data collection that it's striking that he voted against a compromise bill that would curtail that data collection.

I don't understand why the pipeline is such a hot issue. We're talking about using eminent domain to seize a lot of land so that a pipeline full of foreign oil can be shipped out of the Gulf of Mexico. I get the benefit for the money people behind it, but how would this benefit the country?

This has always been my question too - I get the benefits to the pipeline companies and such, but how do all the "rah rah energy" ordinary voters and such not realize that it's just going to help drive down the cost of oil and make American energy production less economically viable.

It's somewhat of a moot point now anyways, as that tar sands oil is all being sent by rail across Canada.

But sure...let's build a giant pipeline across America. Those things never you know...leak or are targets for terrorists or anything.

Libertarian Champion Rand Paul Helped Kill NSA Reform Bill

I dunno: let's pretend that politics isn't all theater, removing from the option, the ability for him to say "hey, I voted against it because it wasn't good enough" when he knows that "good enough" will never see the light of day for a vote.

What's better:
* Codifying phone surveillance but putting a surveillance court (FISA, right?) order on any requests. However, you basically tell the phone companies they have to keep the records.
* Allowing the NSA to basically do this unchecked with the hope of killing it some other day?

Either way, someone is collecting the records and keeping them forever. The one has some checks but the onus is still on making sure they exist while the other is basically a wink-wink deal to let it keep happening as is. Both suck, near as I can tell.

SI

Pretty much, yeah. Pick your poison. Furthermore, Paul is deluding himself if he thinks the Republicans are going to gut the Patriot Act when they gain control of the Senate. Neither party has any interest in removing it.

That said, I almost think the former is WORSE, for a simple reason - I about promise you that the phone companies will happily pass on this 'mandated cost of storing all call data' to the customer, as a nice little surcharge. Neither option is good, nor will it change anything. We'll just probably wind up paying more with it in the hands of the phone companies.

Fixed that for ya ;)

Oh, cool.

Jonathan Gruber quotes contradict Obama promise - CNN.com

So, how is this going to shake out. I just looked at our company health plan and it's right on the cusp of being "Cadillac".

Yes, because if we've learned anything it's that tax cuts will only get passed if they don't impact the deficit. Maybe the plan was for the tax to hit more people, but if it starts hitting middle-class workers it will get changed. Lowering taxes is never difficult.

It's amazing how quickly conservatives went from thinking Gruber knows nothing to thinking Gruber knows everything.

The cost is the problem you have with this? Not the actual data?

SI

I have a MASSIVE problem with the collection of data. I also know that it's not going to stop.

Quite the buzz around here regarding Obama's speech tonight. Certainly going to create a lot of angst among the xenophobes but it's much overdue IMO.

On another note, I was at a banquet last night and one of our local village board trustees had had a few too many drinks and he got talking to me about race relations. I could've sworn I'd walked into a KKK meeting. Normally I'd just brush it off as some old drunk spouting off but this guy is actually in a position of power in our town. If I really wanted to, I could completely sink and discredit that man by recording some of the nonsense that comes out his mouth, including only referring to Obama as the 'Nigger Communist President'. He keeps getting re-elected on name recognition but I wonder if my town (that always votes D) would reelect him if they knew what he was really all about.

Sounds like he'd like the new Speaker of the Nevada House.

I don't even know what Rand Paul stands for anymore.

It's a terrible bill and I'm not going to blame Rand for not voting for it.

Even on areas where I could agree with Rand, he pisses me off. Instead of doing the hard work to shape the bill more in his liking, he'll vote against and then be content to grandstand when there's no chance of passing anything.

I would love to see a law passed where they do not include party affiliations on ballots or in titles. It would be interesting how, or if, that would change people's attitudes towards many politicians.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 36m36 minutes ago
What you always hear in righty circles: whispers that shutdown actually "worked," help Rs make '14 gains. Informs their thinking on immig.

If they think the shutdown "worked", guess what folks, it's gonna be a long two reality denying years on the right of the right.

If they don't impeach the miserable sonofabitch after this ... pitchforks & torches would be a marvelous second choice.

He's definitely giving me reason to rethink the whole "nah, Carter was even worse" argument I've made in the past.

Just like the miserable sonofabitch Reagan, right? Obama wishes he could do amnesty like Reagan did amnesty.

How cute, he is trying to be a political troll.

Obviously I can't rise to yours or JIMG's level :p.

I can just drink your delicious tears like Eric Cartman drank Scott Tenorman's.

Damn, now Obama will never be able to work with congressional Republicans after this speech.

/sarcasm

I've advocated this for a long time.

You know you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually took the time to educate yourself instead of just spouting off.

But I suppose that's asking for too much.

I'm just having a hard time finding a reason to get angry over this. So basically the priority for deporting will be the least desirable which only leaves about 6 million we're concerned about as well as anyone new who enters the country illegally. Considering we'll never come even close to getting those 6 million out, what has really changed with his order?

And the legality question is just stupid. It's prioritizing who will be focused on, as provided in US Code

The immigration debate is interesting to me, because the roles of the two parties should be reversed.

Immigrants mean cheap labor. The party of business should be in favor of more immigrants so they can keep wages down, which means more profits.

The party of the masses, should not want to encourage more immigrants for the same reasons. They should be looking to improve the plight of their constituents by eliminating the flow, so the labor pool is smaller and wages go up.

What hacks me off about this, is we are not solving the underlying issue. Whoever is President can manipulate this issue, or just not enforce the laws. The problem as I see it, is by allowing a large underclass in the country you introduce a breeding ground for resentment, which is a potential avenue for terrorists or others to funnel into the country.

So you have a solution for poverty?

Maybe I'm naive, but most of the South American illegals are coming here to do jobs that Americans (no matter what class) are unwilling to do.

They do these jobs because it is a better opportunity than where they are, because most of their governments are corrupt or there is no opportunity for their unskilled labor (lack of education, lack of health, lack of safety). Not to get off tangent, but the war on drugs and the war on communist aggression have really undermined goodwill in Central and South America with the U.S. (Mexico is in shambles due to corruption but also due to the drug cartels whose major market is the U.S.)

So they flee North and work in kitchens, fields, sweatshops...

In regards to terrorists, I have yet to see a Mexican terrorist.

Personally, a comprehensive immigration policy that gets these individuals naturalized and paying taxes is vital because it is growth to our population that we have to pay for benefits-wise.

If we can also perhaps adjust our war on drugs to a point where profitability is a zero-sum game for cartels, then perhaps, just perhaps there can be a better dialogue with those nations where the bulk of illegals come from.

The U.S. is still a place many aspire to live because of opportunity and safety, illegals shouldn't be penalized for wanting the same thing our ancestors did generations before, the system needs to be installed/improved upon rather than a can kicked down the road until elections, and then only be a "promise"

Obama is calling on Congress to act...seriously I'm tired of the inertia. Let the Tea Partiers, and GOP and Demo's do something, instead of talking points.

Maybe I am getting soft in my old age, but why should we spend resources going after people who at the end of the day are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their children? Isn't that what we are all trying to do in the end? I deal with a decent amount of people from Latin America and they all seem like good people just making their way in life, no different from you or me.

I agree with Obama that we should go after the violent ones, and spend resources on getting the others to pay taxes, etc...That way they contribute. I think the perception they are a drain is overblown, the drug addict from Florida with 5 kids is a much bigger drain on the system then a Mexican who may have a kid that is a US citizen. Again, just my opinion, I'm sure someone will pull some number from somewhere to disprove that.

Now the thing that does annoy me about immigrants is when they live here, for years, and make no effort to assimilate themselves, learn the language, etc...I think if you are going to live here you need to have the ability to communicate, etc...

Hispanic immigrants are no different than previous waves. The first generation is largely unassimilated, the second generation is mostly assimilated, and the third generation is completely assimilated. Learning a new language as an adult is difficult whether you're an immigrant or not.

It's right there in the Constitution, "high crimes, misdemeanors, and delaying prosecution on some people if certain conditions are met."

Hell, the job creators will be creating so many jobs after Obama leaves office that we will be begging for people to come to this country.

Impeach was a kinder gentler option than dragging his sorry ass out in the street with tar & feathers.

My "immigration reform" policy is no secret, never has been: 30 days notice of policy change & then federally funded bounties for every illegal that's brought in dead or alive.

What happens when somebody brings in a dead but legal Mexican?

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR


That miserable sonofabitch!

Reasonable collateral damage...'MURICA!

That's not the point. Cute way to try to redirect though.

He can only be impeached for things that are ILLEGAL.

Nothing that he did is illegal - hell nothing that he did is anything more than Reagan did back in the 80s.

So you can rant all you want about your "immigration reform policy" wet dream (which sure sounds a lot like the old "slave catcher bounty gangs" although I'm sure that's just a coincidence) where you get to go out in the street and shoot everyone who doesn't look like you and get paid for it, but that's not the point.

Also - what happens in your wet dream when someone come down to GA and shoots you and says "oh I thought he was an illegal Canadian immigrant?" I assume there'll be no repercussions right?

Or are you going to have individual citizens stopping each other asking for papers? And in that case, what's to stop people from either (a) carrying falsified papers, or (b) shooting someone anyways and either taking their papers or saying that they seemed like false papers, or (c) "standing their ground."

You really don't give practical thought to any of the bullshit you spout and it's really ridiculous to try to engage in any kind of conversation with you because virtually everything isn't based in logic or rational thought, but is just based on some fantasy world you'd like to live in.

I get all that, the problem is many don't seem to want to make the effort, and we make it easy for them to not have to. Driving test in spanish, etc...

I know that if for some strange reason I had to move to Peru, I would make the effort to learn the language. It would drive me mad to not be able to communicate.

But that's anecdotal. It's not like Americans have a better track record of learning languages when they live in another country. Learning languages is hard for adults and if you're working, it's even more difficult.

The real point is that there's no difference between this generation of immigrants and previous generations. I have several students that have immigrant parents that don't speak much English, but the children and grandchildren are fluent.

A Hispanic Studies professor was telling me today that the timing of the speech was clearly intended to coincide with the Latin Grammys. Apparently they delayed starting until after the speech and then almost every winner spoke about the new policy. That's a pretty savvy way to reach one of the largest Latino TV audiences.

Do they at least make an effort to learn?

The burden of making a rightful claim rests with the citizen. Be sure before you fire. The plan is designed to curtail overzelous enforcement.


You'd be amazed how much thought has been put into this particular topic. We all have to have some sort of ideal to shoot for (no pun intended).

Oh, as for impeachment, it's allowed for ""treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Failure to defend the borders IS treason as far as I'm concerned, and both Obama and all those who have participated (by giving aid & comfort) should be charged with such. We have been subjected to nothing short of an invasion, and both the perpetrators and their allies should face the harshest penalty available under the law.

Not even sure what to say here...

I've always thought there was some disconnect there somewhere too. It's one area where where it seems like the American left is actually more liberal than the European left. Well at least, there's similar general anti-immigration sentiment in both places (growing at the moment in Europe), but when you consider how much more liberal Europe is than the U.S. in most other areas, that stands out. Especially considering the differences in geography and illegal, undocumented immigration between the two places.

And the economic side is weird too. The left wants to raise the minimum wage, which just seems oddly in contrast with this system where so many American employers depend on paying even less than that. So you even sometimes hear this phrased as a positive contribution these people make to communities - how important that cheap labor is to our economy, etc, and that's why we shouldn't deport them.

And any good weirdo southern gay-hating god-fearing Republican of course thinks Obama is the devil for basically saying he'll use his executive powers less aggressively in deporting people, while at the same time, more people were deported during Obama's first term than in any other presidential term ever, and I believe that pace has continued this term (some of that might just have been the fact that there was more immigrants, but still, I wouldn't say the Obama's executive branch has been any less tough on immigration than any other president - he seems more right than his supporters on this, but of course, nobody can speak against him.). And even while making this speech and pushing forth this policy, which arguably goes against all his campaigning against bypassing congress - he still makes it clear that he wants to stop immigrants at the border, and has actually defended the border much more vigorously than previous presidents - even though fewer people are apparently trying to get in. I'm not sure if that's inconsistent or just pragmatic. I do agree though, that's it's not a clear left/right thing. There's a million different opinions you can have about this, and they're not necessarily tied to your views on anything else.

Except for the fact that they asked for and received Justice Department legal analysis ahead of time.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...ze-removal.pdf

Anyone who thinks the legal arguments behind Obama’s immigration order are radical hasn’t read them yet.


Just because you might believe it rises to "treason" doesn't mean that it actually does. You can stomp your feet and gnash your teeth all you want, but you don't have a legal leg to stand on. You're wrong. That's all there is to it.

There's more agents at the border than there's ever been. They're using technology that makes the border harder to cross than its ever been. The Obama executive branch as deported more people than any other president in history.

I won't even get into what the government has to actually prove to make a criminal treason charge stick.....suffice to say though, every prosecutor's office in America, including the DOJ, utilize discretion and prioritizes prosecutions. It's only when someone doesn't agree with the underlying reasons behind those decisions do all the abuse of power stuff start getting thrown around (and the left does this too).

And it's just ridiculous to hear you talking tough about all this stuff, pitchforks for everyone. When down deep, you're a coward, your hateful advocacy for anyone not straight and white and christian (well specifically, your distorted hateful version of Christianity) ends at your keyboard, which we're actually all pretty lucky for. Edit: Really,the amount of times you've advocated for actually killing or violently attacking people here is enough to put you on some list somewhere. You're lucky nobody takes you seriously and knows that you're just an insecure blowhard.

I can't believe you guys still take JIMG seriously and respond to him in any way other than mockingly. He never has and never will give you an honest debate. He just spews his outdated, racist views.

I don't take him seriously at all - I think I've made that pretty clear over the years. I just think (and I imagine others feel this way too) that it's important that he gets called out on it every so often, partly so that new posters don't get the wrong idea about this place and partly because ignorance and bigotry and hatred thrive in the shadows, thus its important to bring them into the light and confront them (although as I said I can only take the time on occasion).

Plus - when he starts going on about treason or unlawful actions or something - it's refreshing to throw facts back in his face and know that even as pigheaded and ignorant as he is, the facts are the facts and even though he won't admit it here because it would damage his "internet persona" he can't argue that 2+2=5 when someone sets 4 oranges in front of him.

He can and does. We saw that in the ebola thread.

I still maintain that he argues it here to preserve his "NO COMPROMISE/INTERNET TOUGH GUY" persona, but (and I'm sure he'll deny this until he's blue in the face) it gives me a little bit of joy to know that when he lays his head down to sleep at night he knows deep down inside (even if he won't admit it to himself) that he's full of shit.

I hope so. Otherwise he's a dangerous guy. Another reason to call him out here, so we don't look so bad on the subsequent NBC Dateline special after he finally snaps and acts out on his violent fantasies .

"I never saw it coming. He always seemed like a nice guy. Heck, he liked women's basketball."

The 2 groups I have dealt with here in SF, from working at Safeway to public schools, is Russian Jews and Chinese.

Both were very insulated and most of the adults never learned English, regardless of the amount of time here. Moreover, both groups had their children go to weekend Chinese/Hebrew language schools. Imagine if that were happening with Spanish children.

Chinese/Hebrew schools on weekend to balance the English schools on weekdays?

Maybe more of a random thought thread topic but how does an adult even go about learning another language? I've known very, very few people who have actually pulled this off. I know immersion helps a lot, but it's not so easy to immerse yourself when you don't, you know, know the language.

I traveled around the Balkans in the spring and I thought a lot about what it'd be like to live there. I'm sure I'd take in and participate in as much of the culture as I could, as I did in my short time there, but there's a pretty huge limit to that when you don't speak the language and are an outsider. What exactly would I do to learn say, Serbian if I was in Belgrade? I could hire a private tutor or take a class, but that would be very time consuming, and tough to do if I was working. And even with those efforts - I'd probably still suck for years and years at speaking and understanding the language. It's not like you can pick up a language by watching TV a lot or walking around town, or hanging out at the local bars instead of the bars frequented by Americans.

When I was learning Italian, I started with Pimsleur and Rosetta Stone. Those get you the basics. But you soon learn that regular people don't talk like they do in the lessons. You can gain an understanding of a language from classes/lessons/tutors, but to gain fluency immersion is by far the best option.

Do you think you could have done it with JUST immersion? Like if we just drop you off in Italy, would you eventually know Italian if you made the effort to immerse yourself? Just from day-to-day conversations you start with people around town? Different countries vary hugely on how receptive they are to even inviting you to immerse yourself - the Balkans I think are pretty unfriendly and closed off to foreigners, where as I'd imagine Italians to be more friendly. In the U.S. it probably varies a ton by geography.

A Romance language would probably have a better shot at immersion than another, since there are things to find in common. Whenever I was in Spain, Portugal, France, I didn't speak any of the languages, but there was enough in common that I could find something I could relate it to in English. But when I was in Poland or China, that was a whole other story. Having some lessons prior to immersion in any instance would be a great help.

No dunking, but good fundamentals. That's more fun to watch!

In NC, judicial elections are "non-partisan." But it is still easy to figure out the party affiliation of the judges if people care to know them. And the political parties still put of their preferred judges guides. And, of course, the politically-connected money still flows into those races.

But I do imagine that it has an effect on the uninformed voter. I imagine that there are some voters who would just vote based on the R or D next to the name. Maybe they leave the ballot blank in this case? Hard to know. Wonder if that's been studied.

Huh, who'd have expected that? Maybe the 8th or 9th investigation will come to a conclusion more to the Republican's liking.

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories - The Denver Post

What Jon would say if his issue was with the action taken and not, well...other things.

But again, it annoys me more there isn't an effort even made. I have people call my office all the time and ask if anyone speaks Spanish, now working for a huge company I can call a translator line, but how about you get someone who speaks English when you call, instead of the burden being on me?

I just find that sort of thing annoying. If you want to live here and gain the benefits at least attempt to assimilate.

From the summary of the House investigation:



Basically, the admin was telling the truth the whole time and every conspiracy theory is made up bullshit.

It doesn't really matter. The republicans are not going to talk about it or mention the report, but the dumb rednecks will listen to Rush and Fox News spout off about it as if the 20 investigations didn't occur. When Hillary is running, you will hear nothing but this, even though every investigation came up with the same conclusion: Nothing really could have prevented it, their response was appropriate, and the admin bungled the message.

But they were able to rile a base to the polls; that base will reflexively ignore the Republicans' own report as "we haven't found anything YET," and delivered them the Senate.

#winning

Rand Paul arguing that Congress should declare war on ISIS and actually limit the President's powers.

Our politics is better with Paul in it. The best way for Congress to keep the President from exercising Congressional powers is for Congress to actually exercise those powers. Of course, that would involve the members of Congress actually taking a vote on a controversial issue, which pretty much all of them except for Paul and a small handful of others refuse to do.

Fixed.

I'm with him on this, but his tendency to grandstand over actually doing the hard work to change things incrementally is maddening.

Fair enough.

Maybe what I meant to say was more along the lines of when you have a Congress as dysfunctional as ours, having a few Pauls around really helps. But a Congress with a majority of Pauls in it would create a dysfunction of a different type.

I just wonder if the Senate will let any of Obama's nominees for Secretary of Defense go through or if they'll obstruct as usual.

Surely we should have a SoD before going to war right?

I guess no one wants to get on the (possible?) sinking ship of Obama's foreign/military policy. Rumsfeld is having a good chuckle now.

Flournoy out as possible Hagel replacement - CNN.com

Or they don't want to go through the circus of the nomination process, which is going to be long, drawn out and contentious.

Just an additional perspective on Obama's "imperial" presidency. I support immigration reform, I'm not convinced how Obama went to it is the right way ... but I can see how he must have thought a worthless congress needed bypassing (the jab to have them pass a bill must have been infuriating).

On immigration, a tale of two presidents - CNN.com

She was generally expected to sail through confirmation relatively easily.

Who wants the job for the last two years of the term with zero chance of any meaningful policy changes getting through Congress?

Not if Ted Cruz is to be believed.

Ted Cruz: Refuse Obama's nominations until he changes immigration plans | MSNBC

I hate to break it to Cruz but he wasn't going to hold that one up.

Michèle Flournoy tops short list to replace Chuck Hagel - Austin Wright and Jeremy Herb and Jen Judson - POLITICO

edit to add: the story contains the impressions about her before she withdrew

Of course he is. He's the architect of much of the mess Obama inherited, including a vast and fumbled reworking of the DoD that is still being fixed today.

JOBS JOBS JOBS

Private Sector Job Creation After a Year to Enact Policy - aka "Once Mitt Romney says that the President should reasonably own the economy"



Monthly Jobs Created Since Obamacare Passed



BLS statistics, although I couldn't find a BLS-hosted version of the chart, so expect whining about the host of the charts.

Obama on Colbert.



Obama fills in for Stephen Colbert - CNN.com

Looks good.


Didn't you help set that standard?

Wasn't the issue typically that the data was crappily sourced?

SI

I honestly didn't feel his comment warranted a response, so thanks ;)

Obama was fantastic on Colbert. Just hilarious stuff all around!

The torture report is depressing as is Obama's failure to condemn the actions of those that took part. Here's Andrew Sullivan's live reaction to sections.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...orture-report/

God, that's sobering. :(

I mean there are references to some sadistic stuff there - stress positions for folks who had broken limbs, freezing folks to the point of hypothermia, having folks die during interrogation, unnecessary forceful rectal feeding (also known as rape)... and the CIA did their best to hide it. President Bush didn't even really know about the extent of waterboarding until 2006 and he was not comfortable with it.

This is worse than I thought :(.

Cue Jon: "The only thing shameful about it is that we didn't kill all those miserable sonsofbitches right away instead of wasting time torturing them."

Breaking a guy to the point where a couple of finger snaps led him to peacefully lie down on the waterboard. Waterboarding so extreme that the CIA professionals were crying. Paying countries secretly so we could torture in their facilities.

Cheney and his cohorts really deserve prison time. At least they can probably never travel abroad again.