-- ACA (congress couldn't read it until it passed...so said Nancy Pelosi).
-- Iran nuclear deal (Congress must vote before they can read the deal...and that part of the deal Obama gives them to read).
-- TPP (same as above...Congress must vote before they see the entire deal).
-- In no instance was the American public allowed access to any document before it was passed. Guess the Prez likes secrecy since he must have little confidence he can convince people it is a good thing before they read it.
Have you forgotten? It wasn't that long ago Bush energy policy was determined via secret meetings which to this day still haven't been revealed to the public due to Dick Cheneys machinations. We do know that the late Kenneth Lay (he of the Enron scandal and rape of California financial coffers) was among those in attendance.
Sorry 46, but this time, you're stepping in it. Obama may be taking the secrecy thing to another level, but he is far from the first or only one to do it. You can go back to Richard Nixon, or even further back to Ulysses S Grant if you want to find suspiciously secretive activities by residents of the oval office.
It's a thing, yes, but far from exclusive.
2016 = The Year of Voting Dangerously
(and remember, I'm no fan of O' Bama.)
-- Iran nuclear deal (Congress must vote before they can read the deal...and that part of the deal Obama gives them to read).
-- TPP (same as above...Congress must vote before they see the entire deal).
-- In no instance was the American public allowed access to any document before it was passed. Guess the Prez likes secrecy since he must have little confidence he can convince people it is a good thing before they read it.
A prez who thinks he is so good, but does his best work in secret.
Even in your defense, or maybe a better term for what you did is "compare" Obama, you still said
"Obama may be taking the secrecy thing to another level..."
Isn't THAT the point Doc? He ran on transparency transparency transparency and now you are comparing him to Nixon, as liberal constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley has done as well.
To point to "others did it" can justify a whole bucket full of bad shit. Where does that get us?
The Associated Press has said that many of their whistle blowers "dried up" after it became public the Obama admin was spying on them.
How incredibly damaging is that for a democracy? The "fourth estate's" purpose was to monitor GOVERNMENT's action's, NOT the other way around.
Fair point, Jack...
It was not my intention to hurt or disprove 46. My point, and I recognize now that at 5am with no coffee, I did a poor job of illucidating my perspective which is this:
Yes O' Bama is hiding behind a veil of secrecy. However, it's not something Conservatives, the Right, or the GOP can really use against him because of their own history of malfeasance when it comes to "state secrets". Nixon and GWB/Cheney as recent examples.
There are plenty of real, serious issues that can have been and should continue to be put on the table and under a microscope, and certainly transparency in government should be one of them.
But this just opens the floodgates for yet another kerfuffle subthread of which frankly, I'm fed up with reading.
-- Iran nuclear deal (Congress must vote before they can read the deal...and that part of the deal Obama gives them to read).
-- TPP (same as above...Congress must vote before they see the entire deal).
-- In no instance was the American public allowed access to any document before it was passed.
The Associated Press has said that many of their whistle blowers "dried up" after it became public the Obama admin was spying on them.
How incredibly damaging is that for a democracy? The "fourth estate's" purpose was to monitor GOVERNMENT's action's, NOT the other way around.
Instead, all I saw was the need to pro-actively cut off the bleating and bloviating from the ignorants who shall not be named. For once.
As to the issue 46 was making, yeah, it sucks what a bunch of rotten filthy liars our current crop of politicians are as a whole. And highlights one of, if not the biggest reason why a celebrity figure like Donald Trump is at the top of the heap at this juncture of the pre-season.
I would really like to hear how he would respond to a question on transparency in government at the next debate. Sadly, I fear it will turn into a sideshow much as the first debate did.
Nate Silver at 538.com has stated that the algorithms indicate that Trump has less than 2% of the actual voting public behind him. That has not changed since he announced his candidacy despite his polling numbers. Mores the pity, because it means we're undoubtedly going to wind up with just another mainstream piece of shit self serving politician.
At least Trump is making it fun and compelling to watch. He aint boring, thats for damn sure!
He gives 6 main reasons why Trump has almost zero chance, as you point out.
The reason he is "leading", which really is a misnomer, is because people don't understand the polls.
They are used to seeing polls between just two candidates, not 17, and we have a media, including Fox, that doesn't want to educate the public because they want people to think Trump has a legit chance for that helps the ratings.
The attached poll is just one of many reasons Trump has virtually no shot.
Being minus 51 with Hispanics spells certain doom for any R who even wants to be the nominee, let alone president.
That minus 51 percent polling figure for Trump "among Hispanics" is based on PHONE CALLS to households where out-of-work Hispanics are home to answer the phone.
The Hispanics at their day jobs aren't having a say. They wouldn't want no damned illegals comin' in to steal their jobs. They'll go with The Donald.
If Trump doesn't do some asshole thing to disqualify himself, he has a chance.
Had he, he would have told you you have no clue about polling. Lol
I could go into the fact that they call at all hours of the day and call cell phones to get their numbers, which by the way is a a poll of approx 2200 people, which is a massive number in polling, but I wont. Lol
Not sure what you are watching but he is an asshole 100% of the time, except for Saturday, when he is an asshole 200% of the time. Lol
And I agree he has a chance.
2%.
Like low fat milk. LOL
The full text of the ACA was available to congress before the vote. The ones who did not read it were just lazy and chose to rely on staff to do so.
The TPP BY LAW must be made available to the public for 60 days before the president can sign it. After he signs it, congress gets 90 of study before they vote. No, you can't read it while they are negotiating. Who made that rule? Obama? No...Congress.
The iran agreement is available on line. The secret side agreements are between iran and the UN per the UN rule for ongoing investigations which preceded the iran agreement. Obama has no power over that.
Impressive post by nuguy - he batted 100 per cent.
"Obama has no power over that." TOTAL nonsense.
He is the leader of the free world dealing with a terrorist state.
He has ALL the power in the world to demand that info be made public. How many demands did the Iranians have, and get from Obama? Are they batting 100 percent as well? LOL
But for someone SO incredibly feckless as Obama, and someone as yourself who tells us almost daily that the "powerful" Iranian military would "wipe out" the greatest Navy in the world, I can see why you would say that. LOL
This particular agency is precluded by law from revealing confidential information of target countries and for good reason-the target country is not going to cooperate if the info is shared with other countries. If you think the UN is a US flunky, perhaps you should investigate which country is almost always in arrears on UN dues and why.
So your idea that the president can demand disclosure bc he is the"leader go the free world" is as wrong as Nuguys post.
Congress was briefed on the side deals but it looks like the agency is going to keep the deals secret and must do so since iran refuses to consent. The US has no legal right to the info.
They are a TERRORIST state. What part of that don't you understand? They are in NO position to demand ANYTHING when THEY are the ones in breach of the IAEA's non proliferation protocol. Nobody forced them to be signatories to it Mari, they signed on by their own volition.
Of course Obama could have demanded that the deal be made public as a prerequisite to even sitting down at the table! It's called being a negotiator. Have you ever negotitated a deal in your entire life?
Win/win deals are when each side gives and each side takes. In this deal WE gave, the Iranians took! Time after time on issue after issue after issue.
For fks sake Mari, you dodge my questions time after time re:Moniz and the access issue he apparently lied to us about, and you continue to dodge whether the secret side deals would cause you to vote aye or nay but now you are telling us OBAMA MUST abide by international law?
And tell me, when did you start giving a shit about Obama following international law???????
Remember this:
Billionaire today instead of an unemployed porn star. But I didn't. So I'm not.
Equally pointless to speculate whether Mr. O could have negotiated a waiver of the UN disclosure rules 2 years ago. Remember, he approached them, not vice versa. So your notion of listing all demands at the start is a bit naive.
The current topic is whether he has a right to compel disclosure now. He does not.
But I am relieved to see you have backed away from your idea that UN must disclose bc Mr. O is the leader of the free world.
What do you do for a living again? lol
And, when you get a chance, can you provide us with a list of other "laws" you feel the constitutional "law" professor can ignore?
How convenient following those laws, or not, is based on how YOUR politics lines up on a subject.
Btw, I haven't backed off of anything. Obama should have DEMANDED that NOTHING would be secret from congress or the American people when dealing with terrorists. I believe they call it...wait for it....TRANSPARENCY and HAVING A BACKBONE.
And if the UNtold him to fk off, he should of gotten up from the table but as we all know now, Kerry's ass was super glued to the chair at the talks.
This is what happens when you MUST have a deal rather than WANTING to have a deal. You end up taking it up the ass as we did. Did you not see the Iranians dancing in the streets or did Brian Williams not cover that over on MSNBC? lol
Do I really need to explain this to you?
And you take your sweet time telling us how you would vote or why Moniz flip flopped on site access timeline demands.
I think I have only asked about 5 or 6 times.
But keep dodging the key questions. That always helps ones point in a debate. LO
...but they had no time to read it since it was brought to the floor of the House the same day it was introduced and there were only two copies available for all the Democrats to read.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/
As for the TPP, Sen. Barbara Boxer wanted to go read it. She was told by the security guard to surrender her cell phone. She asked if she could take notes; the guard said "yes" but that Boxer couldn't take them when she left. She'd have to give then to the guard who would keep them in a file. Is that your idea of "available?"
http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/12/can-read-notes-life-top-democratic-senator-blasts-obamas-tpp-secrecy/
-- Modified on 8/25/2015 12:26:48 PM
And constantly changing negotiations are secret from the public and congress is not permitted to take home drafts bc they will leak them. And this rule was set by congress not obama. When the final agreement is reached it will be made public for 60 days before signing - so yes I do call that"available" what do you call it?
and it was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever foisted upon the American people, but so many of them seem to defend Obama when he uses the same tactics. Kudos for not being one of them.
Even after more than six years of this Presidency, people just hate to admit that Obama is just another lying, cheating, manipulating politician, just like all the rest of them.
Obviously I am no Boxer fan, but I'll give her credit for at least trying.