This guy has great opinions
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
This guy has great opinions
This is almost as great as Sarah Palin hooking up with Glenn Rice back in the day.
the democratic party is not on our side
this is best candidate we can get in one of the bluest states in the country?
I hope the libs falling over themselves to fellate the FBI remember this
Trump's Idiotic Smear Of Universal Health Care
Mitt - cruisin for a bruisin with Trump once again....
Didn't Mitt pussy out of 'Nam too?
NRA suffers embarrassing defeat in deep red Oklahoma
https://shareblue.com/nra-defeat-oklahoma-mary-fallin-constitutional-carry-gun-bill/
https://shareblue.com/nra-defeat-oklahoma-mary-fallin-constitutional-carry-gun-bill/
"Government is the shadow cast by big business over society"
This is a red herring. If they're interested in enhanced interrogation then look at the politicians who approved it.
that argument didnt work at nuremberg
There is no argument. She's going to get confirmed and the pointless squeeling will go silent.
what do you think democracy is?
The Political Impact of Immigration: Evidence from the United States -- by Anna Maria Mayda, Giovanni Peri, Walter Steingress
"In this paper we study the impact of immigration to the United States on the vote for the Republican Party by analyzing county-level data on election outcomes between 1990 and 2010. Our main contribution is to separate the effect of high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants, by exploiting the different geography and timing of the inflows of these two groups of immigrants. We find that an increase in the first type of immigrants decreases the share of the Republican vote, while an inflow of the second type increases it. These effects are mainly due to the local impact of immigrants on votes of U.S. citizens and they seem independent of the country of origin of immigrants. We also find that the pro-Republican impact of low-skilled immigrants is stronger in low-skilled and non-urban counties. This is consistent with citizens' political preferences shifting towards the Republican Party in places where low-skilled immigrants are more likely to be perceived as competition in the labor market and for public resources."
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w24510.pdf
"In this paper we study the impact of immigration to the United States on the vote for the Republican Party by analyzing county-level data on election outcomes between 1990 and 2010. Our main contribution is to separate the effect of high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants, by exploiting the different geography and timing of the inflows of these two groups of immigrants. We find that an increase in the first type of immigrants decreases the share of the Republican vote, while an inflow of the second type increases it. These effects are mainly due to the local impact of immigrants on votes of U.S. citizens and they seem independent of the country of origin of immigrants. We also find that the pro-Republican impact of low-skilled immigrants is stronger in low-skilled and non-urban counties. This is consistent with citizens' political preferences shifting towards the Republican Party in places where low-skilled immigrants are more likely to be perceived as competition in the labor market and for public resources."
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w24510.pdf
Must win for the Dems for any chance at the Senate
50% approval for DJT in Missouri sounds low, right?
He's in the low 40s nationally so that sounds about right since MO is a right leaning state.
Getting confirmed doesn't make what she did right. Just obeying orders is never a good enough answer.
That's why we have laws that govern this sort of things. The people elect the politicians who make the laws and enact policies that give government employees the legal framework to act within them.
You've successfully obfuscated the point. "Just following orders" has never been an acceptable defense for violating human rights.
No it is for every individual to stand up and say this isn't right. Just because a government says that waterboarding is an acceptable practice does not mean that anybody is right to participate in such action.
The German Government of the early 1940's said it was acceptable to gas undesirables. It was down to the people on the front line to realise what their government was telling them was wrong. The same applies to waterboarding. It's not genocide but it is torture and every right minded human-being should realise that it is not acceptable.
Nuremberg stated quite clearly that it is not up to governments to set the morals on an individual. You are responsible for your own actions.
If you don't like it then change the law.
See above. If the law is wrong it is not a valid argument that you are just doing what you are told to do.
You're not being told to do anything, which is why the myopic comparisons to Germany are completely ludicrous.
What? So they waterboarded detainees without being told to do so? How is she not in jail?
You are given wide latitude within the law to use a variety of tools. The important bit that it was completely legal.
And so was gasing a Jew in Germany. It doesn’t mean that it should be morally acceptable or that someone shouldn’t be held accountable for participating in it.
Just because America hadn’t said that water boarding was illegal doesn’t mean that okay. Or that someone who participates in it is not morally reprehensible.
Everybody in the world is responsible for their own actions.
Goes back to your question of why she is not in jail. What you deem as a moral or ethical crime is not punishable by law. So she is not in prison. You cannot just throw a person into prison for being immoral.
You would have supported the Dred Scott decision.
We're not talking about gassing anyone here. There was a legal exception made after 9/11 to allow various techniques in order to get information to stop another attack. Most of these techniques aren't used anymore today, because they either don't deliver the the intended results or are in some way rub against public sentiment. People who are against any of this should take it up with John Yoo.
Heres what we are talking about
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation
Rectal feeding
Confinement in boxes that made breathing and moving difficult
Putting insects in said boxes
Wrapping a naked person in plastic and filling it with cold water
180 hours of sleep deprivation
Being forced to stand in uncomfortable positions for hours
Being forced to defecate on themselves
Threats to rape family members
Haspell says she regrets none of this and she destroyed evidence. We should be discussing her jail sentence, not whether or not she should be director of the CIA
She has also said - "With the benefit of hindsight and my experience as a senior agency leader, the enhanced interrogation program is not one the CIA should have undertaken."
The tapes shouldn't have been made in the first place and were correctly destroyed to protect the faces and identities of the employees and their families should they have ever been made public.
She said she doesn't regret it. That other statement means nothing when you consider that. She's trying to have it both ways.