I don't think it has to be everyone who agrees on it to be centrist position.
You do bring up good points though and part of the problem is left-right doesn't really capture all the dimensions of politics. Nazis and Communists believe in the murder of their political enemies while Republicans and Democrats generally do not. So how do you rate them? by their acceptance of political murder or their support of nationalism? or their support of social programs.
I like the 4 quadrant system that is used on sites like politicalcompass.org
Elizabeth Warren continues to push for bankers to get jail time for money laundering.
"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," an exasperated Warren said, as she wrapped up her questioning. "But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night - every single individual associated with this - and I just think that's fundamentally wrong."
The President is advocating a drone strike program in America.
It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.
We asked the White House for its response to Paul’s assertion that the president was "advocating a drone strike program in America."
"On the record, that claim is false," said Caitlin Hayden, spokesperson for the National Security Council...............
We reviewed earlier Brennan speeches — such as the one in which he acknowledged the government’s overseas drone program — as well as speeches and news briefings by Obama and his press secretaries Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney.
We found nothing to indicate the administration was "advocating" domestic drone strikes. The most direct statements we saw from the administration on the idea of domestic drone strikes came from Brennan’s nomination testimony and Holder’s letters.
We also asked eight experts in drone-strike policy and law whether they thought Paul was correct that the Obama administration was "advocating a drone strike program in America." None of them did.
Rose, there's a fallacy at the heart of what you said. Think about the above and see if you can recognize it. I think this fallacy clouds a lot of the discussion on drones.
I referred to the government as it?
Whether or not a president ever uses drones on Americans is one thing. The fact that they think the constitution allows them to is another. Generally speaking I'll defend the democrats more than the republicans. But this is terrible, and one of the times I'm glad someone is talking about it even if it is Rand. Hell even if it may be an attempt to squash stories about the effects of the sequester. I didn't like it when we did it to so called terrorists either, for the exact same reasons.
It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.
First Response from Eric Holder:
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
"U.S. Citizen" (The words non-combatant are NOT in there)
Second Letter from Holder AFTER Filibuster
The Attorney General
Washington, D.C. March 7, 2013
The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
So maybe they are not advocating it, but when asked if they could, they replied with gobbledygook instead of just saying no.
The economy adds c. 240K jobs and the unemployment rate drops to its lowest level since December of '08:
US economy adds 236,000 jobs in February; jobless rate falls to 7.7 pct., lowest in 4 years
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, March 8, 11:43 AM
WASHINGTON — A burst of hiring last month added 236,000 U.S. jobs and reduced the unemployment rate to 7.7 percent from 7.9 percent in January. The robust gains suggested that the economy can strengthen further despite higher taxes and government spending cuts.
The February jobs report issued Friday provided encouraging details: The unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years. Job growth has averaged more than 200,000 a month since November. Wages rose. And the job gains were broad-based, led by the most construction hiring in six years.
The unemployment rate, which had been stuck at 7.8 percent or above since September, declined mostly because more people found work. Another factor was that 130,000 people without jobs stopped looking for work last month. The government doesn’t count them as unemployed.
The unemployment rate is calculated from a survey of households. The job gains are derived from a separate survey of employers.
The 236,000 jobs that were added in February is a historically solid total. And it would have been higher if governments were contributing to job growth, rather than subtracting from it as they have for nearly four years. Governments cut 10,000 jobs in February.
If federal, state and local governments were adding their long-term combined average of 20,000 to 25,000 jobs a month, February’s total job gains would have been around 260,000.
Hiring has accelerated since summer. Employers have added an average of 191,000 jobs a month from December through February. They had averaged 181,000 gains from September through November and 135,000 from June through August.
Stock prices rose modestly Friday morning after the report was released at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time. Another day of stock gains would give the Dow Jones industrial average its fourth straight record close.
The government said employers added slightly fewer jobs in January than the government had first estimated. Job gains were lowered to 119,000 from an initially estimated 157,000. Still, December hiring was a little stronger than first thought, with 219,000 jobs added instead of 191,000.
Robust auto sales and a steady housing recovery are spurring more hiring, which could trigger more consumer spending and stronger economic growth. The construction industry added 48,000 in February; it’s added a solid 151,000 since September. Manufacturing gained 14,000 jobs last month and 39,000 since November.
Retailers added 24,000 jobs, a sign that they anticipate healthy consumer spending in the coming months. Education and health services gained 24,000. And the information industry, which includes publishing, telecommunications and film, added 20,000, mostly in the movie industry.
If the House Republicans can stop shooting themselves (and by extension the whole country) in the foot for just long enough for the President to accomplish his Grand Bargain, then we might just see an economic boom the next few years and not just a steady recovery.
I think the Times (or maybe the washington post) had an article a few weeks ago about how if we kept getting positive jobs reports that eventually the money companies have been saving might be spent on new jobs. I hope so.
I wanted to make a new thread just to discuss drone stuff, but I'm super busy at work these days and I know I won't get around to it. However this is the the fallacy I was referring to
It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason.
The fallacy is acting like this is new.
Lawyers often simplify an argument to principles to clarify the issues at stake and you can do this with drones. What, in principle separates from a drone from a crossbow? The government already possessed the ability to attack its own citizens at anytime for decades before drones etc. Drones are just the ability to kill at a distance. The government already possess a lot of ways to kill at a distance. Pistols, Rifles, tanks, artillery, B-29's, cruise missiles etc. Drones are simply a new technology. Illegitimate use of drones is not all that different from the illegitimate use of a crossbow
So the question becomes why hasn't the government done this and the answer is still pretty much we are government of laws and not men. And it's illegal to use force except in certain circumstance. The government can't just go ahead and kill you whether by drone or by crossbow. This was true before Rand Paul's filibuster and it's true now. Paul portrayed Holder's answer to him as some sort of policy shift and that's just not true. He simply asked a different, more direct question. A cop on the beat has the right to use force to prevent an attack. So does the President. In Holder's first letter to Paul, it's quite, quite obvious that the two examples he cites, the Pearl Harbor Attacks and the 9/11 attacks are examples of COMBAT against the United States. Paul tried to portray it as Holder being evasive, when the truth was Paul asked a very tendentious question and then pretended not to understand the answer. Holder also made it very clear, that there would need to be a reason that law enforcement or the regular military couldn't act.
As for Paul raising this issues, you make want to look into Senator Wyden. He has a way of addressing the civil liberty issues without implying the government is going bomb you while you sleep or sit in a cafe.
I liked Charlie Pierce's 5 Minute Rule for Ron or Rand Paul. For the first 5 minutes what they are saying is perfectly sensible, then at 5:01 the train goes off the tracks straight to crazytown. Rand Paul kept coming up with examples where the person could be easily apprehended by law enforcement, like when they are sleeping in their bed or sitting in a cafe.