Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

Back to the original topic (Politics that is)

So... looks like Alabama is the 37th state to allow gay marriage, as the Supreme Court voted 7-2 not to stay the decision lifting the ban on gay marriage.

Same-sex couples marry in some Alabama counties: Live updates from across the state | AL.com

Justice Thomas (and Scalia of course) wrote the dissent saying this shows that the Supreme Court is ready to make Same Sex Marriage legal nationwide.

If it's 7-2 on THAT decision.... you may just see heads exploding throughout the south.

ISiddiqui

02-09-2015 03:33 PM

It'll likely be 6-3, with Kennedy and Roberts joining the majority. That way, Roberts can make the ruling as narrow as possible (knowing that the conservatives have lost the gay marriage ruling with Kennedy joining the liberal 4). Otherwise, it may open the gates to sexual orientation being a suspect class (a la, race, gender, etc). If Roberts rules there is no rational basis for denying same sex marriage, those questions can still play out.

flere-imsaho

02-09-2015 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2999047)

Back to the original topic (Politics that is)

Do we have to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2999048)

That's pretty cynical, Imran. Probably correct, but also cynical. Sigh.

Edward64

02-09-2015 06:17 PM

Quote:

Back to the original topic (Politics that is)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 2999016)

Whew.

JPhillips

02-09-2015 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2999048)

I wonder about Alito. Thomas and Scalia will relish the opportunity to stand against change, but will Alito want to have a Quixotic stand against gay marriage as a big part of his legacy?

Edward64

02-10-2015 12:36 PM

Don't know how much support Obama has and don't really understand the scope of his request. More details to come I'm sure.

Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Quote:

President Barack Obama will soon give Congress his proposal for a new authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State fighters, and it will place strict limits on the types of U.S. ground forces that can be deployed.

Almost six months after the president began using force against the Islamic State advance in Iraq and then in Syria, the White House is ready to ask Congress for formal permission to continue the effort. Until now, the administration has maintained it has enough authority to wage war through the 2001 AUMF on al-Qaeda, the 2003 AUMF regarding Iraq and Article II of the Constitution. But under pressure from Capitol Hill, the White House has now completed the text of a new authorization and could send it to lawmakers as early as Wednesday. Aides warned that the White House may tweak the final details before releasing the document publicly. :
:
The president’s AUMF for the fight against Islamic State would restrict the use of ground troops through a prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations," but provide several exemptions. First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel.
:
The new statute would authorize military action against Islamic State and its associated forces, which are defined in the text as organizations fighting alongside the jihadists and engaged in active hostilities. This means the president would be free to attack groups such as the al-Nusra Front or Iraqi Baathist elements who have partnered with the Islamic terrorists in Syria or Iraq. There are no geographic limitations, so the administration would be free to expand the war to other countries.

The president’s proposed AUMF would sunset in three years and would not give the president the unilateral authority to extend the authorization. That means the next president would have to come back to Congress for a new authorization in 2018, if the fight against Islamic State fighters lasts that long.
:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been resisting a vote on the floor on an AUMF, but now that the president has made his move we can expect floor action in late February or early March, following hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Some Republicans remain skeptical of the president’s actual enthusiasm for an AUMF, as the current ambiguity gives Obama a lot of flexibility in carrying out the war. They will now wait to see if the administration remains active on the issue after the legislation is introduced.
:
The last time President Obama asked for an authorization to use military force, it was to strike the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons. Yet it was obvious that the administration wasn’t wholly committed to actually prosecuting that war. He nixed the attacks before Congress weighed in.

This time around, Obama is already engaged in the fight against Islamic State and his team genuinely wants Congressional buy-in. Clearing up the legal ambiguity of the war will be helpful. But it won’t solve the more important conflict between the White House and lawmakers over the scale and effectiveness of the mission.

AENeuman

02-10-2015 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2999221)

Don't know how much support Obama has and don't really understand the scope of his request. More details to come I'm sure.

Best scenario would be use of our planes and tech, while neighboring countries provide troops. Failure to do that I think just makes this yet another un-winnable American war on Islam.

Dutch

02-10-2015 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2999240)

Best scenario would be use of our planes and tech, while neighboring countries provide troops. Failure to do that I think just makes this yet another un-winnable American war on Islam.

If you use planes or tech and you are killing people, you are already at war, though I'd argue that if anybody is at war with Islam, it's ISIS.

flere-imsaho

02-11-2015 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2999261)

If you use planes or tech and you are killing people, you are already at war, though I'd argue that if anybody is at war with Islam, it's ISIS.

Gah. I hate it when you post something with which I agree.

Also:

Quote:

if anybody is at war with Islam, it's ISIS

That's probably the most astute thing that's been said in this thread for years.*

Anyway, we need to first recognize that there are no good options. When we give machinery, weapons and air support to people, we run the real risk of a) them not being capable enough to win anyway and/or b) them eventually turning on us down the road. When we put troops on the ground, well, do we really need to rehash the last 13 years?

Having said that, though, I'm more comfortable with the first option. We need to be helping only people who can help themselves, not imposing our strategy on a quasi-willing partner.

Having said that, and back to Dutch's comment, ISIS represents an existential threat to Iraq and neighboring Islamic states. It does not represent an existential threat to the United States and probably not to Europe. This is a real opportunity to put pressure on those still-rich Arab/Islamic nations to take a real role in solving the problem themselves.

*except for everything I say, of course. :D

panerd

02-11-2015 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2999358)

Having said that, and back to Dutch's comment, ISIS represents an existential threat to Iraq and neighboring Islamic states. It does not represent an existential threat to the United States and probably not to Europe. This is a real opportunity to put pressure on those still-rich Arab/Islamic nations to take a real role in solving the problem themselves.

*except for everything I say, of course. :D

But if we don't do anything than Saudi Arabia might attack us again. I mean ummm er Iraq and Afghanistan!

Edward64

02-16-2015 01:12 PM

I guess no surprise on Bush but I have to read more on Walker.

Walker and Bush: Meet Your Republican Presidential Frontrunners - NBC News

Quote:

There are two big takeaways from our new NBC/Marist polls of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that we released yesterday.

First, with less than a year before the first nominating contests, the Republican presidential field is wide open -- seven different possible GOP candidates get double-digit support in at least one of the states.

Second, only two potential candidates (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) are in double digits in ALL three states. So call Bush and Walker your very early 2016 Republican frontrunners.

Here is the breakdown among potential GOP caucus-goers and primary voters:
•Iowa: Mike Huckabee 17%, Jeb Bush 16%, Scott Walker 15%, Chris Christie 9%, Rand Paul 7%, Marco Rubio 6%, Ben Carson 6%, Rick Santorum 5%, Rick Perry 4%, Ted Cruz 2%, Lindsey Graham 1%.
•New Hampshire: Bush 18%, Walker 15%, Paul 14%, Christie 13%, Huckabee 7%, Carson 7%, Cruz 6%, Rubio 6%, Perry 1%, Graham 1%, Santorum 1%.
•South Carolina: Graham 17%, Bush 15%, Walker 12%, Huckabee 10% and Carson 10%, Paul 7%, Christie 6%, Rubio 4%, Perry 4%, Santorum 3%, Cruz 1%.

Bush and Walker have separated themselves from the rest of the pack. And if you were to award a point system for poll position in each state (5 points for 1st place, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 4 points for 4th, 1 point for 5th), your top four would be Bush, Walker, Huckabee, and Paul (tied with Graham). That sounds about right.

flounder

02-18-2015 02:12 PM

Biden gonna Biden.

Quote:

Hosting a White House summit on violent extremism, Biden sought to draw a parallel between Minneapolis, where local leaders are working to prevent radicalization of Somali youth, and his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, which Biden said also has a "large, very identifiable Somali community."

"I might add, if you ever come to the train station you may notice that I have great relations with them, because an awful lot of them are driving cabs, and are friends of mine," Biden said.

Edward64

02-18-2015 05:07 PM

I think Obama said it well below but don't think what we call them will help them in their "desperate for legitimacy".

Many of the "terrorists" use their interpretations of Islam to justify what they do. I struggle with this but think I would lean towards calling them Islamic terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politi...mit/index.html

Quote:

President Barack Obama, speaking at his summit on countering violent extremism Wednesday, sought to strike a balance between appealing for more acceptance of Muslim-Americans while emphasizing the need to remain vigilant against radicals who could turn violent.

"We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam," Obama said during his remarks, adding later that Muslim leaders "need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam."

Obama went to lengths before the summit began to avoid linking extremism to the Muslim faith; his intent, aides say, was to avoid giving credence to the ideologies of Islamic State or al Qaeda terrorists.

On Wednesday he sought to explain his wording, declaring al Qaeda and ISIS "desperate for legitimacy."

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam," he said. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists."

Dutch

02-18-2015 07:41 PM

I'm not struggling with it, it's terrorism, but I agree with Obama's interpretation. These poor people in the deserts of northern Iraq and Syria are getting brain washed by nothing more than a (masterfully planned) cult where support is based 100% on fear. It's simple math to them. Support it or die in a fire. Crazy shit.

NobodyHere

02-18-2015 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 3001692)

These poor people ... are getting brain washed by nothing more than a (masterfully planned) cult where support is based 100% on fear. It's simple math to them. Support it or die in a fire. Crazy shit.

This part of the quote also applies to Christians and Fox News viewers.

Marc Vaughan

02-18-2015 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3001704)

This part of the quote also applies to Christians and Fox News viewers.

It honestly scares me the number of Fox news viewers I come across who seem to think the only solution in the Middle East involves violence and lots of it ...

cuervo72

02-18-2015 08:33 PM

I'm watching The Italian Americans on PBS, and they just covered this:

David Hennessy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Parkerson told the crowd that they needed to "remedy the failure of justice" that resulted from bribery of the jury. Shouting "Kill the Dagoes," a large crowd stormed Parish Prison. Eleven of the 19 men who had been indicted for Hennessy's murder were lynched. According to witnesses, the "cheers were deafening."

Quote:

The headline in The New York Times read, "Chief Hennessy avenged...Italian murderers shot down."[19] "The Italians had taken the law into their own hands and we had no choice but to do the same," said Mayor Shakspeare.

It's not a new sentiment or approach, Marc. (And obviously pre-dates that.)

flere-imsaho

02-21-2015 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 3001692)

Gah! Stop saying things with which I agree! You're killing me here, Dutch! :D

Dutch

02-21-2015 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 3002751)

Gah! Stop saying things with which I agree! You're killing me here, Dutch! :D

Haha...sorry for killing your FOFC street cred once again. :)

Edward64

02-21-2015 07:51 AM

Glad there is going to be a showdown.

Wonder what Iran's role will be. I'm still not sure if Iraq likes/depends on us more than Iran etc. and if we are really getting a good view of that relationship based on western media.

Obama should support the Peshmerga, they seem to be the only dependable ally.

U.S. defense chief: Mosul assault should be launched at right time to succeed - CNN.com

Quote:

Any operation to take Mosul will be "Iraqi-led and U.S.-supported," he said.
:
And Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told the BBC this week that while there's still work to do, he is sure the Iraqis are going to retake the crucial northern city.

"We are now planning an offensive on Mosul in the coming few months," the Prime Minister said. "We have to prepare for it carefully because the only choice we have in Mosul (is to win). We have to win in Mosul to keep (ISIS) out."
:
According to the U.S. Central Command official, who spoke to reporters Thursday, Mosul police and tribal forces would likely join Iraqi troops in the assault on the city. Peshmerga would play a supporting role, not going into Mosul but instead blocking off supply and escape routes north and west of the city.

The hope is for an operation in April or May to avoid running into Ramadan (mid-June through mid-July) and Iraq's summer heat, the CENTCOM official said. A final decision has not yet been made, though.

Count Sirwan Barzani, a senior Peshmerga commander, is among the skeptics that such a spring assault would work.

"I don't think it's realistic, and I don't have any idea about a plan," Barzani told CNN's Ben Wedeman. "And if it involves the Iraqi army only, it's not going to work. The Iraqi army is not ready for the fight."
:
If the Iraqi forces -- from five army brigades -- do the street-to-street fighting, theoretically they should significantly outnumber their ISIS counterparts.

Right now, ISIS has an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 fighters in Mosul, the U.S. official said, but more could join the fight if they take the threat of attack seriously.

However, an additional challenge for the Shia-dominated Iraqi military and Peshmerga is that they will be trying to take a majority Arab Sunni population city.

Even if the offensive succeeds, sectarian divisions could exacerbate an already complicated situation and make it hard for the Iraqi military to hold on to the city.

JPhillips

02-21-2015 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3002757)

Obama should support the Peshmerga, they seem to be the only dependable ally.

Easier said than done. If we provide too much support for the Kurds that will piss off the Turks and the Turks are a much more important ally.

It is fascinating that we're in a position where we need to cooperate with the Iranians. With the exception of Jordan, the Sunni states seem to either be sitting this out or covertly supporting radicals.

Can't we just create a fully renewable energy grid so we can largely walk away from all this nonsense?

Dutch

02-22-2015 09:42 AM

Now the terrorists want to bomb American malls.

It's scary, but at the same time, this presser's got this weird "terrorism meets the Muppet Show" aura about it...

Edward64

02-22-2015 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 3002915)

Now the terrorists want to bomb American malls.

Unfortunately we have a lot of soft targets.

SackAttack

02-22-2015 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 3002915)

Now the terrorists want to bomb American malls.

It's scary, but at the same time, this presser's got this weird "terrorism meets the Muppet Show" aura about it...

What do you mean "now"? I remember hearing warnings that malls might be targets when Bush was still in office. The idea of "soft" targets that we cannot defend as effectively as we (now) can airplanes is not a new one.

Dutch

02-22-2015 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack (Post 3002921)

Okay, Sack Attack, you got me...Islamic State Iraq & Syria (ISIS) circa 2015 terrorists. I assumed that was clear enough without restating it. :)

SackAttack

02-22-2015 10:42 AM

Yeah, but ISIS is supposed to be an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, which itself was an offshoot of the main branch.

Thinking that their assumed goals changed just because their leadership did and they're only just now circling back around to them did seems unwise to me. ;)

Dutch

02-22-2015 01:10 PM

Yep, just seems odd coming from a regular that keeps up with current affairs.

Dutch

02-22-2015 01:55 PM

For example, DHS just issued a warning...not because "It's always been a threat" but because of new explicit threats from ISIS.

Edward64

02-24-2015 10:59 PM

Six years or so of administrative review is a long time. Suspect that Obama is playing the waiting game.

But does Keystone really matter anymore? it seems as if Fracking is more strategic (for all the good and bad) now.

Obama rejects Keystone XL bill - CNN.com

Quote:

President Barack Obama, exercising his veto power for the first time in five years, rejected on Tuesday a measure green-lighting the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
:
The measure, which passed the Republican controlled House and Senate earlier this month, would have bypassed an administration review of the oil pipeline project, which if completed would transport oil from tar sands in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Advocates -- including Republican leaders in Congress and the government of Canada -- say Keystone would create American jobs, but opponents argue the potential environmental risks aren't worth it.

The White House said they opposed the GOP-bill because it usurped the President's authority to approve or deny the creation of the pipeline, which was first proposed more than six years ago. Since then, the project has been the subject of administration review, including the current State Department analysis that's been underway for years.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Tuesday it was still a possibility that Obama approves the pipeline once the State Department review is complete, but didn't reveal a time line for that scenario.

NobodyHere

02-25-2015 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3003838)

If only republicans cared about big government taking property from Americans and giving it to foreign corporations.

If only.

Warhammer

02-25-2015 12:39 AM

Pipelines are a safer mode of transportation for oil than trains are. Are there issues with them? Sure, but they are better than trains.

What kills me with this, is we'll transport it by train, and then complain when one derails and spills it all over.

JPhillips

02-25-2015 06:38 AM

I think it will eventually happen. This bill was about approving it outside of the normal review process. I bet either this happens in his last year through the normal review process, or it becomes a bargaining chip in some negotiation.

Of course I don't understand why anyone but the oil companies involved is in favor of this. Isn't this a plan to take a bunch of land through eminent domain so that foreign oil can be more easily shipped overseas?

Qwikshot

02-25-2015 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3003864)

We have a natural gas pipeline proposal here in PA that is causing a furor in our local communities. It's going to wind up about 2 to 5 miles from my home, in a residential area.

flere-imsaho

02-25-2015 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer (Post 3003845)

Pipelines are a safer mode of transportation for oil than trains are. Are there issues with them? Sure, but they are better than trains.

I was curious about this, and here's the first google hit I got: Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes

JPhillips

02-25-2015 07:45 AM

Another question.

Why can't the pipeline go to the Pacific in Canada? Is it regulations? The mountains? Lack of refining?

flere-imsaho

02-25-2015 07:46 AM

Also, the job gains due to Keystone XL are, last time I looked, 1000 for short-term construction and about 30 permanent.

Additionally, Keystone XL makes the extraction and delivery of tar sands oil cheaper, which is great unless you care about the fact that it's also an environmental disaster of an extraction method.

I'm perfectly OK with saying that oil needs to be more expensive, and its expensiveness needs to be a real catalyst to get people honestly thinking of being more sustainable (at the individual/micro level) to seriously looking at alternative fuels (at the macro level). Like we were kinda/sorta starting to do back when gas was almost $5/gallon. Keystone XL is going in the opposite direction. That's why I support this veto and hope Obama doesn't crumble on it later in his term.

flere-imsaho

02-25-2015 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3003874)

The mountains? Lack of refining?

My understanding is that it's these two. The mountains just make it more expensive to build & maintain, and I don't believe there are any refineries on the Canadian pacific coast.

Mizzou B-ball fan

02-25-2015 09:36 AM

I think something that is far more telling about this veto is the fact that it's his first veto in five years and only his third in his presidency. That veto power should be used far more often over the course of seven years if the gov't is functioning as designed. I don't think it should be terribly surprising, but our gov't needs a major overhaul. This video isn't even correct anymore.

NobodyHere

02-25-2015 09:52 AM

When your party controls one or both houses for most of your presidency, you don't veto many things.

JPhillips

02-25-2015 09:53 AM

Given the composition of the Congress, why should the veto have been used more often? Until January, at least one chamber of Congress has been controlled by the President's party and vetoable bills were stalled there.

Now there's a lot of problems with process IMO, but the number of vetos doesn't seem like a good measure of effectiveness.

edit: or, What he said.

flere-imsaho

02-25-2015 10:53 AM

Yeah, you're only going to see a lot of vetos when the other party has both houses, can deal with the filibuster in the Senate, and keeps sending the Oval Office partisan shit. Boehner's tried his best to make this happen, but the Democrats holding the Senate until this year have meant the flow of bills to the White House has slowed to a trickle.

I'd expect more vetos in the next couple of years, except that the GOP looks almost as excited to fight each other as they do the President, and the Democrats can still (for now) pull of a filibuster for the stuff they really don't like.

Dutch

02-25-2015 10:56 AM

Some media outlets are jumping all over Bill O'Reilly, apparently to deflect from the Brian William mess.

Crisis management, Fox News style: Bill Oâ€™Reilly goes for the jugular - The Washington Post

News Media is a dirty, dirty business. Killin each other with the pen.

JPhillips

02-25-2015 12:21 PM

I wouldn't say deflect from Brian Williams as he's suspended and very unlikely to get his anchor chair back. O'Reilly killed Williams over his lies, so what's good for the goose...

Galaxy

02-25-2015 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 3003952)

The fight over the expiring Department of Homeland Security bill is an example of how the GOP plans to play it's cards; focus on politics and not sending clean bills.

Mizzou B-ball fan

02-25-2015 03:39 PM

Good God. I guess this is what qualifies as leadership in our country.

Women's bodies can't perform magic. Someone please tell Republicans | Jessica Valenti | Comment is free | The Guardian

Buccaneer

02-25-2015 04:10 PM

So broad-brushing is still alive and well?

NobodyHere

02-25-2015 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 3004146)

So broad-brushing is still alive and well?

Do you really have to ask that? Especially in a politics thread?

Dutch

02-25-2015 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3003999)

I wouldn't say deflect from Brian Williams as he's suspended and very unlikely to get his anchor chair back. O'Reilly killed Williams over his lies, so what's good for the goose...

Brian Williams admits that his story of coming under fire while in Iraq was false - The Washington Post

The tone is night and day.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Page 499 of 527