3 ms·

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is thi

by stfu 14y ago

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process? Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a very similar subject "solved" by circumventing public discourse?

tptacek 14y ago
I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling. Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA. But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.
- stfu 14y ago
  If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process? Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions bad things are sneaked upon the public - and presidential orders are the ideal tool to accomplish this.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.
    - stfu 14y ago
      Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on. I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points. But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Considering that there he is still part of an active political process - even across party lines (e.g. fiscal cliff) - the problem is not with the president - but apparently with the proposal.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        He can't even get his (Republican) SecDef candidate confirmed. I'm sorry, I know that in the frictionless intellectual void that is message board arguments, it makes sense that Obama should be able to get bipartisan consent for defense measures, but in the real world that simply isn't so.
        stfu 14y ago
        The controversy on Hagel's nomination has very little to do with his party line. Instead his questionable views on Israel are making him a choice that is difficult to sell - both to Republicans as well as Democrats. Not saying that Hagel is such an outliner, but it is easy to nominate a fringe candidate of the other party and then pointing fingers when his own party does not support his views. Of cause something as sneaky as that would be unimaginable in real-world politics, and I am probably just watching too much House of Cards.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by stfu 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling. Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA. But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

stfu 14y ago
If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process? Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions bad things are sneaked upon the public - and presidential orders are the ideal tool to accomplish this.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.
  - stfu 14y ago
    Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on. I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points. But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Considering that there he is still part of an active political process - even across party lines (e.g. fiscal cliff) - the problem is not with the president - but apparently with the proposal.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      He can't even get his (Republican) SecDef candidate confirmed. I'm sorry, I know that in the frictionless intellectual void that is message board arguments, it makes sense that Obama should be able to get bipartisan consent for defense measures, but in the real world that simply isn't so.
      - stfu 14y ago
        The controversy on Hagel's nomination has very little to do with his party line. Instead his questionable views on Israel are making him a choice that is difficult to sell - both to Republicans as well as Democrats. Not saying that Hagel is such an outliner, but it is easy to nominate a fringe candidate of the other party and then pointing fingers when his own party does not support his views. Of cause something as sneaky as that would be unimaginable in real-world politics, and I am probably just watching too much House of Cards.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]