United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Well, actually judicial review is not an explicitly established power.
It's actually not sustainable even with that (also, as far as I know the government isn't taking money from social security). Social security isn't like a bank account where you pay in until you're 65 and then live off your saved money (though that is the case for similar programs overseas,like Australia). Social security works by taking taking tax revenue from people currently working, and then directly transferring it to retirees. This addresses the issue that Australia's superannuation system has where inflation eats into the value of the saved funds, at the much more severe cost of requiring a precise balance of workers and retirees, a balance that is out of wack.
There's not enough money for that:
We spend far more on welfare programs then the military, and even substantial cuts to the military won't close the gap. We also probably can't afford those cuts, we have existing obligations that must be covered, and the navy is one of them. The US navy is the only navy powerful enough to counter China's growing naval ambitions, we can't cut back on that.
Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard, actually. The Marines are technically part of the Navy, they're not a totally independent branch.
However, that's the same overly literal understanding of the Constitution that leads to the "it says welfare, therefore the government can do anything" understanding of the constitution. It's self evident that at the time, thec intent behind that clause was to allow the federal government to fund a full military if it was required. Likewise, we know what the 10th amendment was understood to mean at the time of ratification.
Even if the law was 100% clear there would still need to be a SC for other circumstances. The SC would still have to be the final arbiter of appeals, address disputes between court circuits, resolve disputes between states, resolve cases involving foreigners, etc. As laid out in the Constitution, article III, Section 2.
Article II, section 2 and 3 vest the president as the chief diplomat for the United States, he therefore has authority do whatever is required to fill that role, unless you're prepared to argue that he can't, say, hold a formal state dinner because the constitution doesn't include guidelines on table settings?
As for receiving gifts, you're again wrong. The Constitution says officals of the United States cannot receive gifts without the consent of congress, it does not say that they cannot receive gifts period.
Doomsought
Well-known member
No, thee supreme court exists as the finall stop for appeals to a higher court, piracy, and lawsuites between states.
Airedale260
Well-known member
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/SQ6LS2FLNRAXDJCEK5BTXSDSTA.png)
No, the military did not leave its working dogs behind, DoD says
Contract working dogs, rather than military working dogs, appear to be the ones left behind.
www.militarytimes.com
I'm not trying to pick on you here, just so you know. But the fact that this tweet is from some random person and is citing "Russian State Media" which is ALWAYS suspect should be a big red flag (no pun intended).
Basically, some of the dogs appear to have been left by contractors but they were with an animal rescue group and NOT MWDs.
Quibbling over technicalities when it comes to the lives of those dogs does not make the situation any better. The dogs were left behind, and had served as part of the occupation force; quibbling over exactly which part of the occupation force is not a good way to try to argue for credibility.No, the military did not leave its working dogs behind, DoD says
Contract working dogs, rather than military working dogs, appear to be the ones left behind.
I'm not trying to pick on you here, just so you know. But the fact that this tweet is from some random person and is citing "Russian State Media" which is ALWAYS suspect should be a big red flag (no pun intended).
Basically, some of the dogs appear to have been left by contractors but they were with an animal rescue group and NOT MWDs.
And let's not pretend the US media isn't our own version of Pravda these days; at least RT's biases and such are known not to be something resulting from American liberal media bias. The only reason they are turning on Biden is because the fuck up in A-stan has been on such a scale, and happened in such a way, first reminded them of Saigon, then morphed into something that it makes Saigon look good. Those images of Afghani's falling from planes to their death is something that happened to civies during the Saigon civie airlift as well.
Also, RT has nothing to fear from doing those sorts of interviews; American journalist could lose their career, or life, doing the same right now.
Now we have to trust the Taliban to care for them, when they should be back home with the people they had served with (military, contractor, whatever), and would be if not for the State Dept.
And no one can blame the dogs for 'not getting to the airport/getting through the gates', either.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
For what it's worth, I don't really care about the dogs. They're animals; cute animals, but nowhere near as important as the human beings that were left behind as well, which I think they're something of a distraction from.
Space force is department if the AF. They are the Marines of the AFIt's actually not sustainable even with that (also, as far as I know the government isn't taking money from social security). Social security isn't like a bank account where you pay in until you're 65 and then live off your saved money (though that is the case for similar programs overseas,like Australia). Social security works by taking taking tax revenue from people currently working, and then directly transferring it to retirees. This addresses the issue that Australia's superannuation system has where inflation eats into the value of the saved funds, at the much more severe cost of requiring a precise balance of workers and retirees, a balance that is out of wack.
There's not enough money for that:
We spend far more on welfare programs then the military, and even substantial cuts to the military won't close the gap. We also probably can't afford those cuts, we have existing obligations that must be covered, and the navy is one of them. The US navy is the only navy powerful enough to counter China's growing naval ambitions, we can't cut back on that.
Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard, actually. The Marines are technically part of the Navy, they're not a totally independent branch.
However, that's the same overly literal understanding of the Constitution that leads to the "it says welfare, therefore the government can do anything" understanding of the constitution. It's self evident that at the time, thec intent behind that clause was to allow the federal government to fund a full military if it was required. Likewise, we know what the 10th amendment was understood to mean at the time of ratification.
Even if the law was 100% clear there would still need to be a SC for other circumstances. The SC would still have to be the final arbiter of appeals, address disputes between court circuits, resolve disputes between states, resolve cases involving foreigners, etc. As laid out in the Constitution, article III, Section 2.
Article II, section 2 and 3 vest the president as the chief diplomat for the United States, he therefore has authority do whatever is required to fill that role, unless you're prepared to argue that he can't, say, hold a formal state dinner because the constitution doesn't include guidelines on table settings?
As for receiving gifts, you're again wrong. The Constitution says officals of the United States cannot receive gifts without the consent of congress, it does not say that they cannot receive gifts period.
The Fed has been pulling money OUT of Social Security for decades. That's why all the money coming in has to go right back out to pay retiree benefits.
I'm thinking they've got some dirt on Mitch
Wonder what an audit of his state's previous elections and primaries would turn up?
Or he's just a crook.
That's what I was thinking
Equally possible, but he seems to side with the Dems more than the republicans lately.
Worthless either way.
bintananth
behind a desk
Naw, it's simplier than that.
The GOP would need the assistance of at least 7-9 House Democrats to impeach Biden and 17 Senate Democrats/Independants to remove him from office.
Biden ain't leaving the Oval Office until his term expires unless he dies, resigns, or screws up so badly that a decent chunk of the Democrats in high office are willing to say "Biden needs to go."
No, Biden simply hasn't done anything to warrant his removal from office. And doing so would only bolster the Democrats if it fails. And it will.
I don't think he once ever agreed that impeaching Trump was good either. He's hardly being unfair. And to be honest, Biden hasn't done anything to get impeached. We'd need proof that Biden either abused his authority or betrayed his oath. He has done neither thus far.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
People forget that impeachment isn't a legitimate process for removing someone who's unfit for office anymore (in fact, it's arguable it never was); it's just a political weapon that can only really be used when your side controls both the House and the Senate.
That said, even though Mitch McConnell is right about impeachment being a pointless exercise against Biden, he's still a Republican In Name Only regardless.
bintananth
behind a desk
You are too kind when you call him a RINO. He is "Yertle the Turtle" and only sticks his neck out his shell when the issue can't possibly threaten either his re-election or position in the Republican party.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
What he is, is the perfect example of why I consider the Republican party to be little more than controlled opposition for the Democrats.