The New American Politics thread

[Itse]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Reagan was an awful president. Full stop. A whole lot of the problems the US faces now are because of ridiculous policies he put in place, not the least of which is the completely unwinnable "war on drugs" that is draining this entire country of millions of dollars of resources annually.

If you want to blame one president for "War on drugs", blame Nixon.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Reagan was an awful president. Full stop. A whole lot of the problems the US faces now are because of ridiculous policies he put in place, not the least of which is the completely unwinnable "war on drugs" that is draining this entire country of millions of dollars of resources annually.

But Reagan saw a UFO, and admitted it to the public! He was also a proponent of the Star Wars program, (he should be re-named to Obi-Ron Kenobi). These important points in history are what made him the best president in US history.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Itse

If you want to blame one president for "War on drugs", blame Nixon.

True, but Reagan escalated the situation. But then again, so did every other President after that.

Reagan was terrible. A great orator perhaps, but a terrible President with terrible policies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Obama's foreign policy is far from perfect, but a whole lot of the issues that his administration has been facing were issues brought about far before he got into office. ISIS came to power because GWB insisted on starting a war on false pretenses which led to a vacuum of power which led to the rise of ISIS. Most Middle East issues are things that outside interference aren't going to fix--these are battles that are centuries (and sometimes millenia) old, and Western interference has just muddied the process even further.

And as said above--what exactly do you do with Russia? Invade? Cold War Redux? It's kind of a no-win situation. This country doesn't need another war--we can't afford it. Hell, we can't even afford to take care of the veterans we already have, let alone creating more.

I find it hilarious that Fox News types paint Putin as a strong, solid leader that they wish Obama was more like--yet when Obama tries to show strength, such as with executive orders, he's a liberal tyrant with no respect for the constitution.

He's far from a perfect president, but he's still a drastic improvement from his predecessor.

The price of oil is hurting Putin more than Obama or the US ever could.

Oil production ramped up a lot under Obama, so make of that what you will.

[Thor]

Iran has a strong undercurrent of young people (50% of the population is under 30yrs of age) which has much more liberal views than its government, and this deal would help move things forward in a good way.

A bombing or war campaign will only play to the hardliners and push back any progress in a liberal direction. So the Rethuglicans are playing right into the hardliners hands, and so is anyone not willing to give this deal a real shot.

Bush couldn't do anything the last time Russia decided to flex its muscle in a former soviet state, this Ukraine situation has more to do with how little the EU is ready to flex its muscles, its economic warfare that harms Russia, not military might, because that would lead to some terrible outcomes if we went that route.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oil production ramped up a lot under Obama, so make of that what you will.

Shale fracking technology developed more and was implemented at a lower cost then a few years ago?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by driveway

This is a B+ Grade 10 level assessment of the foreign policy concerns facing the United States. Well done.

Wouldn't give a B+.

Source: Former teacher.

[Vulcan]

Nothing like making these Republicans look like the idiots they are.

The next time Republicans in the Senate try to explain treaties and the U.S. Constitution to Iranian officials, they may want to pick someone other than a foreign minister with a masters and PhD in international relations from the University of Denver, plus two degrees from San Francisco State University. Javad Zarif, who is also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, responded to a letter from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and 46 other GOP senators with an explainer of his own.

Not only are the senators shaky on their own Constitution's separation of powers, Zarif wrote, according to Iran's Tasnim News Agency, but "the authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states, and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."
That's important, Zarif added, because "the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by U.S. domestic law."

Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran's peaceful nuclear program.... I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with 'the stroke of a pen,' as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law. [Zarif]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/543362...te-republicans

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Nothing like making these Republicans look like the idiots they are.



http://theweek.com/speedreads/543362...te-republicans

As if that's ever stopped them before

[Flamenspiel]

I don't think its that straightforward, the pressure from the Israelis, Sunni Arab states, and the Republicans kind of serve as sort of an international good cop/bad cop play on the negotiations. Certainly its a stronger bargaining position for the rest of the world then simply all falling in lock step behind this deal.

When it comes down to it, its a matter of nuclear compliance, the stronger the controls the more effective a potential agreement would be. I would not be surprised if there was some nudges and winks behind the scenes.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't think its that straightforward, the pressure from the Israelis, Sunni Arab states, and the Republicans kind of serve as sort of an international good cop/bad cop play on the negotiations. Certainly its a stronger bargaining position for the rest of the world then simply all falling in lock step behind this deal.

When it comes down to it, its a matter of nuclear compliance, the stronger the controls the more effective a potential agreement would be. I would not be surprised if there was some nudges and winks behind the scenes.

The more Iran feels pressure from Israel and the Sunnis the more they will want a bomb.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Oklahoma passes bill restricting marriage to those of faith

http://guff.com/glt-oklahoma-house-p...ge/20?ts_pid=2

Just, wow

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Oklahoma passes bill restricting marriage to those of faith

http://guff.com/glt-oklahoma-house-p...ge/20?ts_pid=2

Just, wow

LOL. I'm glad I don't live in this state (only work in it!). What a colossal waste of time and money as this would surely be challenged successfully in the courts.

All this because two wonderful ladies were allowed to marry. (I say wonderful as I had a fantastic conversation with them at the Melissa Ethridge concert in Tulsa a few months ago. Yes I went and saw Melissa Ethridge...fantastic performer).

And of course it completely ignores that many members of the clergy are more progressive than the conservatives in this country.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Oklahoma passes bill restricting marriage to those of faith

http://guff.com/glt-oklahoma-house-p...ge/20?ts_pid=2

Just, wow

I saw that a couple days ago, but couldn't find any msm to corroborate the story

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I saw that a couple days ago, but couldn't find any msm to corroborate the story

It's real. Daily Show covered it last night with various news clips shown during the segment.

[nik-]

Not even just "faith". Christian or Jewish.

A. All Except as provided in subsection E of this
section marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed
or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent
persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in
this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the
Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination
who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he
or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least
eighteen (18) years of age.

Subsection E basically says if you don't do the above, you can apply for common-law.

E. Marriages not contracted by a formal ceremony pursuant to
subsection A of this section may be acknowledged by filing an
affidavit of common law marriage with the court clerk. The
affidavit of common law marriage shall be signed by both parties,
notarized with official seal affixed and include:

The bill

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...1125%20INT.PDF

[ernie]

John Stewart may have went a bit far calling it Sharia Law last night...but it isn't far removed. And many clergy are even speaking out against it because separation of church and state issue.

Of course it also assumes a true clergyman of the christian faith would never dare marry a same sex couple which is of course not true. Unless that is covered somewhere else in the law. I didn't read it. I didn't want my head to explode.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by ernie

John Stewart may have went a bit far calling it Sharia Law last night...but it isn't far removed. And many clergy are even speaking out against it because separation of church and state issue.

Of course it also assumes a true clergyman of the christian faith would never dare marry a same sex couple which is of course not true. Unless that is covered somewhere else in the law. I didn't read it. I didn't want my head to explode.

but of course

Section 3. A. Any unmarried person who is at least eighteen
(18) years of age and not otherwise disqualified is capable of
contracting and consenting to marriage with a person of the opposite
sex.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by nik-

but of course

Of course.

And of course they "don't want the government involved in marriage" except to the extent of saying who exactly can marry.

[dobbles]

the worst part of the law? that its probably not even in the top 5 for worst legislation of the session. its been a bad year to live in oklahoma. i gotta get out of the south before i assimilate!