US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[Mandark]

You guys. 

[Phoenix Dark]

Just in time!

[benjipwns]

Modern media and the destructive representation of conservativism

Although rightfully excoriated for his comments comparing public unions to ISIS, Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-Wis.) treatment by the media continues to highlight the gross disparity in the way with which conservative candidates are analyzed and represented, when compared to their liberal counterparts. Whereas Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton are all hailed for their various policy proposals, as well as their personal and professional achievements, individuals like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are ruthlessly assailed for every quip or comment, be they contextual or otherwise.

This was patently evident in 2008 as well as 2012, and will most assuredly be applicable once again in 2016. From tales of Mitt Romney’s elementary school bullying, to reports about Paul’s “Aqua Buddha” college days, the depths to which modern media apparatuses will dredge in order to invalidate a Republican’s candidacy, surpasses even those explored by the Trieste. This is highly problematic, as it only takes an anonymous comment, erroneous claim, or an unverified accusation, in order to destroy the legitimacy of a right leaning contender. This same approach however, would be understandable if it were equally applied to both sides of the political aisle, but seldom is that ever the case.

Each of the aforementioned Democratic heavyweights has more baggage than a gypsy caravan, but what few stories do make it to print regarding their issues are typically brief, excused, and quickly forgotten. It may not seem like much, but such a handicap with relation to past misdeeds or suspected skullduggery can (quite effectively and easily mind you), tilt and distort the public’s perception of a given individual. When this happens predominantly to GOP candidates, the hazards become quite clear.
Tea Partiers are dismissed outright, while socialist fringes on the left are never acknowledged nor addressed. Adjectives such as “wacko, crazy, radical, extremist, fundamentalist, and myopic” have become synonymous with the Republican Party, whilst Democrats are only reported to be pragmatic or “slightly more progressive”. Even thoroughly debunked claims have been routinely utilized to attack conservative hopefuls.

Two weeks before the Iowa caucus, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) surged to a comfortable and timely lead, although immediately upon attaining said position; questions regarding racist newsletters bearing his name were suddenly raised. Given the nature of the accusations, such inquiries could have been viewed as reasonable, if only the articles hadn’t been penned some 25 years earlier, and discredited no fewer than 10 times since.

Unlike Paul however, the discourse surrounding New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has already pivoted from questionable associations, to his plans for statewide reforms. This has all transpired less than two weeks after it was revealed that the speaker of the New York Assembly, Sheldon Silver, had been taking millions in bribes in exchange for various kickbacks. Cuomo, although not charged, had been accused of interfering with the Moreland Commission, a body he started (and eventually disbanded) in order to root out said instances of corruption.  Yet now, rather than looking deeper, journalistic lap dogs, content with warming the thighs of a high profile Democrat, have moved on to more important issues, like raising the state’s minimum wage.

And yet the encumbrances placed upon conservatives by media outlets, extend far beyond refuting purported wrongdoing. Policy proposals are held against anecdotal sob stories and hyperbolic rhetoric, while missteps are often sufficient cause for the evisceration of not only the individual in question, but also all those with whom he or she is aligned. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in attempting to advance his plan for the economy was brutally denigrated because his agenda would “decimate the poor”, while Mitt Romney on the other hand was bewilderingly attacked for his “binders full of women” comment.

For Conservatives, it’s a no win situation, as the sins of one are often linked to distant cohorts in even the most tenuous manner available.  Todd Akin’s ignorant and inflammatory rhetoric regarding rape and pregnancy became a clamorous blunder that had media personalities demanding apologies from the likes of Reince Priebus in addition to other leading party figures. However, when house member Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) called Tea Partiers “white crackers”, and further emphasized how he only cared for life in war when the fallen looked like him, it’s was just business as usual; dumpster fires will burn and Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Texas) will say astonishingly idiotic things, nothing to see, no further comment.

Frustratingly, the list goes on and on and the resulting predicament is rightfully distressing; successful democracies are dependent upon the informed consent of the general electorate, and when balanced reporting is forsworn in favor of advancing a given ideology or individual, it threatens the body in entirety.

Without question, many in the media see conservatism as an ailment that hinders societal advancement, while viewing progressivism as the logical cure. The trouble only arises however, when journalists begin to act as the attending physician, practicing medicine on a patient who neither wants nor needs their assistance.   In doing so, we have arrived at place where relativist absolutes hang around the neck of contemporary Republican candidates like a tire filled with petrol. 

Morris is a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, and am pursuing a masters' in International Relations.

Richard Vandiamondsworth • 3 hours ago
It's common knowledge 99% of the media work as propagandists for demmunists, not counting hollywood and government schools.

Real journalism is dead, yet Conservatives remain in denial. Instead of taking their message (when they have one) directly to the people, they stupidly allow their enemies to speak for them.

Until the Right accepts politics is not a gentlemen's duel but a street fight in an alley, they will lose.

Jus'speakin'th'truth • 19 minutes ago
Cry me a freakin' river. The Republican party has 24/7/365 AM radio worldwide, it has Fox News (which Conservatives never stop bragging about its high viewership), it has billions of dollars in backing from the wealthiest men in the country, it has Drudge linking to the wide, wild world of wingnut websites.

And, after 2+ decades of accusing Hillary Clinton from everything from graft to lesbianism to murder to treason, I don't want to hear a single whine from any White Boy Tea-baggers...

chasrmartin • an hour ago
Interestingly, you have a perfect example in your lede. You write:

Although rightfully excoriated for his comments comparing public unions to ISIS,

But what walker actually *said* was:

At the end of a long response to a question about the terrorist group, Walker said, “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/scott_walker_didn_t_compare_unions_to_isis_he_just_said_something_foolish.html

No mention of ISIS.

Either this was a very subtle joke, or a correction might be warranted.

[Kara]

I read Trieste and thought of the city because Joyce, Svevo, and World War II occupation zones on people who say gypsy in formal polemics.

[benjipwns]

That whole sentence tho 

also, he's certainly got the graduate student comma problem

[Brehvolution]

That Hill article

[Great Rumbler]

295k jobs in February, unemployment is 5.5 percent:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/234835-economy-adds-295k-jobs-in-february

[Kara]

That whole sentence tho 

also, he's certainly got the graduate student comma problem

From tales of Mitt Romney’s elementary school bullying, to reports about Paul’s “Aqua Buddha” college days, the depths to which modern media apparatuses will dredge in order to invalidate a Republican’s candidacy, surpasses even those explored by the Trieste.

DELETE DOTA MS WORD NUB

[Am_I_Anonymous]

This is funny because it's true



Please  pardon the interruption.

[Broseidon]

:cryinghekmatyar:

[Mandark]

blah blah Beirut barracks bombing blah blah retreat from Lebanon blah blah

I don't really mind the Reagan worship at this point (outside of trying to rename everything after him).  To my bleeding heart sensibilities it's way better than the borderline low-key blatantly racist stuff about Muslims/immigrants/dead black teens that I keep needing to weed out of my FB feed.

[Kara]

The Rashidun couldn't even handle the Khawarij and ain't no boxers changing their name to Ronald.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Please, Kara, allow me to point out that the world's greatest footballer is...

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-beck-ben-carsons-prison-sex-comment-the-dumbest-thing-ive-ever-heard/
when you've lost Glenn you've lost the nation

[Great Rumbler]

Carson has no intention of winning "the nation," just the section of the nation that will buy his books and pay him in stacks of money for speaking engagements after his run for President inevitably flames out in the same manner as his predecessors.

In other words, grifters gotta grift.

[Great Rumbler]

In what could be a prelude to a Presidential run in 2016, on Friday Joe Biden released to the public both e-mails that he has written while serving as Vice-President for the past six years.

Biden took pride in announcing that he had sent both messages from his official government e-mail address, adding, “I have nothing to hide.”

Minutes after the e-mails were released, the media pored over the treasure trove of materials, which offer a fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpse into Biden’s tenure as Vice-President.

The first e-mail, written to President Obama in December of 2009, asks about the time and place of the White House holiday party.

The second and last e-mail, written in May of last year, asks the President, “Is our Internet slow today? I’m trying to watch something,” followed by a frowny-face emoticon.

According to Biden’s records, the President did not respond to either e-mail.

[helios]

In what could be a prelude to a Presidential run in 2016, on Friday Joe Biden released to the public both e-mails that he has written while serving as Vice-President for the past six years.

Biden took pride in announcing that he had sent both messages from his official government e-mail address, adding, “I have nothing to hide.”

Minutes after the e-mails were released, the media pored over the treasure trove of materials, which offer a fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpse into Biden’s tenure as Vice-President.

The first e-mail, written to President Obama in December of 2009, asks about the time and place of the White House holiday party.

The second and last e-mail, written in May of last year, asks the President, “Is our Internet slow today? I’m trying to watch something,” followed by a frowny-face emoticon.

According to Biden’s records, the President did not respond to either e-mail.

Biden tryin to watch some porn

[Oblivion]

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK!

 

Glad to see you're still kickin'.

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama going in hard at Selma

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-07/jeb-bush-confronted-by-dreamer-compares-obama-orders-to-decrees-of-latin-american-dictator-

During a private event on Saturday in Iowa, the former Florida governor was asked, in Spanish, about President Barack Obama's executive actions; in Spanish, he explained that he supported a path to citizenship for "DREAMers" but that it should be created by law rather than by decree, "because that's like a Latin American dictator."

Oh Jeb, you want to be president so bad.

[benjipwns]

In what could be a prelude to a Presidential run in 2016, on Friday Joe Biden released to the public both e-mails that he has written while serving as Vice-President for the past six years.

Biden took pride in announcing that he had sent both messages from his official government e-mail address, adding, “I have nothing to hide.”

Minutes after the e-mails were released, the media pored over the treasure trove of materials, which offer a fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpse into Biden’s tenure as Vice-President.

The first e-mail, written to President Obama in December of 2009, asks about the time and place of the White House holiday party.

The second and last e-mail, written in May of last year, asks the President, “Is our Internet slow today? I’m trying to watch something,” followed by a frowny-face emoticon.

According to Biden’s records, the President did not respond to either e-mail.

Also unanswered was his asking if he could wash his trans-am in the drive-way.

[Great Rumbler]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

[Phoenix Dark]

Makes sense. He handles all communication through Grindr DMs.

[Kara]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Imma comin' Bibi, wait for me.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Insult your elders because they handle shit like real men brehs.

Hurry up and send me a defensive email.

[Great Rumbler]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Insult your elders because they handle shit like real men brehs.

Just because you're old doesn't mean you deserve any respect.

[Kara]

I probably wouldn't show Eugene Debs respect and he didn't vote for DOMA or abet state torture.

[Joe Molotov]

I probably wouldn't show Eugene Debs respect and he didn't vote for DOMA or abet state torture.

OTOH, just think about spending the weekend at Graham's immaculately furnished antebellum home, while he handles you like a real man.

[davepoobond]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

i do declare, that is quite hilarious.

[Boogie]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Insult your elders because they handle shit like real men brehs.

Hurry up and send me a defensive email.

Yeah, these are the sort of people we want ruling on things like net neutrality. 

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Insult your elders because they handle shit like real men brehs.

Just because you're old doesn't mean you deserve any respect.

Correct but to disrespect a guy who doesn't use email is a petty infantile extremely uppity democratic response. Consider me shocked.

[Great Rumbler]

Not satire, but real life:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email.

"I don't email," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "You can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one."

Insult your elders because they handle shit like real men brehs.

Just because you're old doesn't mean you deserve any respect.

Correct but to disrespect a guy who doesn't use email is a petty infantile extremely uppity democratic response. Consider me shocked.

[Brehvolution]

It's as if there are monied interests that have a stake in nothing being done. Why else would these people get put in these positions?

[Am_I_Anonymous]

It's as if there are monied interests that have a stake in nothing being done. Why else would these people get put in these positions?

You glad hand your constituents, duh.

[Mandark]

Meh.  This isn't making fun of some octogenarian for not understanding hashtags.  Email's been pretty widespread going on two decades now, and Graham's not yet sixty years old.  I'd be surprised to learn a county councilman his age hadn't ever used email, much less a US senator.  I'm guessing it's less about handling his business like a real man* and more about having a paid staff that handles all his communication for him.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*Putting Lindsey Graham and "real man" in the same post is an obvious bait to draw out heteronormative snark and I'm not biting, dammit.  Also weird to see AIA demanding people show deference to a dude who's only ever worked for the government.

[close]

[Am_I_Anonymous]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*Putting Lindsey Graham and "real man" in the same post is an obvious bait to draw out heteronormative snark and I'm not biting, dammit.  Also weird to see AIA demanding people show deference to a dude who's only ever worked for the government.

[close]

[benjipwns]

After a marathon town-hall meeting in Concord's Snow Shoe Lodge, the Republican held a gaggle with reporters, and Fox News lobbed a question about the e-mail. Graham repeated himself: He did not use e-mail. He preferred to talk on the phone.

"The next president of the United States needs to be good with people, not just technology," he said.

After that exchange, Graham responded to a question about Clinton with a joke: "If she could do it again, she'd do the Lindsey Graham thing, and not use e-mail." As he headed to his car, I asked Graham to explain his communication methods, a subject that truly baffled a press corps that walks around with smartphones welded to hands.

"What I do, basically, is that I've got iPads, and I play around," Graham explained. "But I don't e-mail. I've tried not to have a system where I can just say the first dumb thing that comes to my mind. I've always been concerned. I can get texts, and I call you back, if I want. I get a text, and I respond not by sending you a text, but calling you if I think what you asked is worthy enough for me calling you. I'm not being arrogant, but I'm trying to jealously guard myself in terms of being able to think through problems and not engage in chat all day. I've had a chance to kind of carve out some time for myself not responding to every 15-second crisis."

George Pataki better watch out, Graham is probably going to be right on his tail with the voters now.

[Kara]

It's as if there are monied interests that have a stake in nothing being done. Why else would these people get put in these positions?

It's a country of morons who elect morons

or ? The decision is clear.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

It's as if there are monied interests that have a stake in nothing being done. Why else would these people get put in these positions?

It's a country of morons who elect morons

or ? The decision is clear.

It's a little deeper than that, pally. I, for one, don't really want the government regulating my interwebs. I mean I must be going crazy though, right? With how well they have handled healthcare and our aging infrastructure you'd think I'd be right in line with the masses.

[Steve Contra]

It's like Republicans don't realize just how much the government invested in creating the internet in the first place.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

It's like Republicans don't realize just how much the government invested in creating the internet in the first place.

/AL Gore

Yes we understand the military was the first primary user. I mean some of us actually paid attention in school.

[Great Rumbler]

With how well they have handled healthcare and our aging infrastructure you'd think I'd be right in line with the masses.

When you put people in charge of running the government who actively want it to fail in order to prove a point about government, then, well, you're going to get that sort of thing.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

With how well they have handled healthcare and our aging infrastructure you'd think I'd be right in line with the masses.

When you put people in charge of running the government who actively want it to fail in order to prove a point about government, then, well, you're going to get that sort of thing.

Don't look at me. I wrote in a vote for Porky Pig last election. Seriously.

[Dickie Dee]

It's as if there are monied interests that have a stake in nothing being done. Why else would these people get put in these positions?

It's a country of morons who elect morons

or ? The decision is clear.

It's a little deeper than that, pally. I, for one, don't really want the government regulating my interwebs. I mean I must be going crazy though, right? With how well they have handled healthcare and our aging infrastructure you'd think I'd be right in line with the masses.

[Great Rumbler]

Forty-seven Republican senators signed an open letter to Iran's leaders warning that a potential nuclear deal won't outlast Barack Obama's presidency, hinting that Congress does not intend to honor it.

The letter, led by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and first reported by Bloomberg View, comes at a highly sensitive time as the Obama administration is reportedly closing in on an agreement to lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for halting its nuclear program for as many as 15 years.

"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system," the Republican senators wrote. "First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. ... Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

(The senators erred in their description of how treaties work. As Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out, the Senate does play a key role in voting on and consenting to a treaty, but it is the president who negotiates and formally "ratifies" it, as the Congressional Research Service has explained.)

"President Obama will leave office in January 2017," they continued, adding that they "will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

The signatories to the letter include three potential Republican presidential candidates — Sens. Rand Paul (KY), Ted Cruz (TX) and Marco Rubio (FL) — and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY).

 

[Steve Contra]

Forty-seven Republican senators signed an open letter to Iran's leaders warning that a potential nuclear deal won't outlast Barack Obama's presidency, hinting that Congress does not intend to honor it.

The letter, led by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and first reported by Bloomberg View, comes at a highly sensitive time as the Obama administration is reportedly closing in on an agreement to lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for halting its nuclear program for as many as 15 years.

"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system," the Republican senators wrote. "First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. ... Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

(The senators erred in their description of how treaties work. As Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out, the Senate does play a key role in voting on and consenting to a treaty, but it is the president who negotiates and formally "ratifies" it, as the Congressional Research Service has explained.)

"President Obama will leave office in January 2017," they continued, adding that they "will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

The signatories to the letter include three potential Republican presidential candidates — Sens. Rand Paul (KY), Ted Cruz (TX) and Marco Rubio (FL) — and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY).

 

On an international level.

[Great Rumbler]

Sabotage a potential deal with Iran so you can start another war in the Middle East, brehs.

“In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, said. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

[Kara]

(Americanized) Iranian politicians talking more sense than prominent members of the majority party in both chambers?

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Sabotage a potential deal with Iran so you can start another war in the Middle East, brehs.

“In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, said. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

We need to learn our lesson from North Korea. You can't keep giving the local bully your lunch money or he'll keep taking it.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Interesting NYT article about how Hillary could lose the general election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/upshot/hillary-clinton-is-more-vulnerable-in-2016-than-you-think.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

I don't see it. The Republican path to 270 is too daunting. They'd need someone really inspiring to take some of those swing states. Jeb isn't it, and Walker definitely isn't it.

Although I do like Jeb he isn't strong enough to carry his father and big brother's baggage to a win. Walker is just meh.....we're 8 years out from the people who are actually able to compete being eligible.

[Brehvolution]

The ether

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

The New York Post concluded its scathing editorial attack on Pelosi’s trip, entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense,” by declaring: “Negotiating with world leaders – particularly those at odds with the United States – should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.” USA Today headlined its editorial “Pelosi Steps Out of Bounds,” arguing that “she violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” and accused the Speaker of knowingly undermining Bush’s right to run U.S. foreign policy:

Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,” arguing:

    The Speaker of the House is not the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the Administration. In fact, her policy positions seek to contravene the foreign policy of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, by defying the specific request of the administration to refrain from traveling to Syria, blatantly infringed upon the Constitutional duties of the President. Additionally, I believe her trip was the most blatant violation of the Logan Act by a top elected official in the history of our country. . . . Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s her job to conduct foreign policy in defiance of the President. She is wrong on the Constitution and wrong on the law.

National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy pronounced that “there isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act,” and that “it is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch.”

The Washington Post editorial page viciously attacked Pelosi’s trip, arguing that “Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish”; the Editors added that the Speaker offered “an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state” and that “the really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.”

Still, the reason I so vividly remember the 2007 controversy over the Pelosi trip is because it was part of this constant Bush-era effort to demand that the President was the sole authority on foreign policy, and that attempts by members of Congress to “interfere” with his actions were illegitimate, possibly illegal, and likely treasonous, because few things are worse than, as Joe Lieberman put it, undermining the Commander-in-Chief (and just by the way, if you’re a citizen who is not in the military, the President is not your “Commander-in-Chief”).

If only dums were so pompous and vulgar.

[Kara]

When I read "Senate Republicans, obsessed as always with carrying out the agenda of the Israeli government and leading the U.S. into more militarism and war,..." I kept waiting for a J/K that never came. 

[Brehvolution]

The joke is on the American taxpayer.

[Mandark]

We need to learn our lesson from North Korea. You can't keep giving the local bully your lunch money or he'll keep taking it.

What do you mean by that?

[Steve Contra]

He means that if we keep giving Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want...wait that says North Korea?

[Joe Molotov]

He means that Iran will cut us in the face if we keep letting Ronald Reagan sell them missiles.

[Kara]

Negotiating with the DPRK (a pariah state) didn't work, ergo it won't work with the IRI, also a pariah state.

What this fails to account for however is that one of these countries has an increasingly embarrassed superpower as a patron while the other has, at best, soft cooperation from patron states and is itself somehow a patron.

There's also the fact that one is a pariah because it's a pariah and the other is a pariah because the U.S. is now more at them about shit no1curr about from decades ago than it is at Cuba, which is pretty impressive when you think about it.

I'm also brushing past a bunch of other things but dis shit already tl;dr.

[Phoenix Dark]

[jakefromstatefarm]

ignoring the fact that American political support of an Israeli state is a direct result of the Holocaust, I'm sure Cotton et al. would've deftly navigated the Third Riech's concept of lebensraum and Judenrein, leading to a mitigation of casualties along the Ostfront

[Kara]

He seems awfully Shoah that.