MoBettle wrote:

thephan wrote:I missed this last week.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Face the Nation that former presidential candidates who do not endorse Donald Trump for president could find themselves penalized if they run for president again.

“Those people need to get on board,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

I guess that somewhat explains the Cruz crumble.

Yeah everyone knows that Reince always gets who he wants as the republican nominee.

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

But shouldn't we have to compensate families we kill?

I place morality above budget considerations. Maybe if we had to pay for our mistakes, we wouldn't make as many? We have few deterrents to runnings drone out all over the place at this point. I think that's bad for America in the long run because other countries are really starting to hate us, even the ones who used to like us. Again, in the long run, I think that's worse for our interests.

Well this isn't just necessarily about compensating people like that. (Though I do think many of the people that voted for this bill will be the first people to say that we shouldn't do that) It's about recognizing country's courts right to provide a cause of action and to collect damages against the another country. Do you trust a Saudi court to administer justice fairly against the United States? And it's not even just America the country. Right now we have treaties that protect individual Americans abroad from various law suits. By doing this we both give other countries a reason to disregard those treaties, and lose a leg to stand on when we ask people to uphold treaties.

Sovereign Immunity is something that's worked pretty well for a pretty long time. Diplomacy isn't perfect, but I trust it as a much more effective way to administer justice against other countries than private law suits in a foreign court. This opens a can of worms that I am pretty worried we won't be able to stuff back in. Good for Obama for being an adult and taking a stand on this, though I wonder if he would have if he wasn't a lame duck.

I was thinking it would be a neutral world court at the Hague or something.

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

But shouldn't we have to compensate families we kill?

I place morality above budget considerations. Maybe if we had to pay for our mistakes, we wouldn't make as many? We have few deterrents to runnings drone out all over the place at this point. I think that's bad for America in the long run because other countries are really starting to hate us, even the ones who used to like us. Again, in the long run, I think that's worse for our interests.

Well this isn't just necessarily about compensating people like that. (Though I do think many of the people that voted for this bill will be the first people to say that we shouldn't do that) It's about recognizing country's courts right to provide a cause of action and to collect damages against the another country. Do you trust a Saudi court to administer justice fairly against the United States? And it's not even just America the country. Right now we have treaties that protect individual Americans abroad from various law suits. By doing this we both give other countries a reason to disregard those treaties, and lose a leg to stand on when we ask people to uphold treaties.

Sovereign Immunity is something that's worked pretty well for a pretty long time. Diplomacy isn't perfect, but I trust it as a much more effective way to administer justice against other countries than private law suits in a foreign court. This opens a can of worms that I am pretty worried we won't be able to stuff back in. Good for Obama for being an adult and taking a stand on this, though I wonder if he would have if he wasn't a lame duck.

I was thinking it would be a neutral world court at the Hague or something.

Well that has its own problems, but regardless that's very different than the precedent we are setting by letting 9/11 victims sue sovereign nations in US Federal Courts though. "Our people can sue you in our courts, but to sue us you have to go to the Hague."

pacino wrote:Trump is going to have Gennifer Flowers at the debate. Wtf is wrong with him

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Trump is going to have Gennifer Flowers at the debate. Wtf is wrong with him

this seems like a political miscalculation on the part of the republican nominee.

JUburton wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Trump is going to have Gennifer Flowers at the debate. Wtf is wrong with him

this seems like a political miscalculation on the part of the republican nominee.

I go back and forth on whether or not she should address but I'm leaning more towards that she could seriously excoriate him for this if executed well.

jerseyhoya wrote:2-point poll in PA is probably wrong. But that same poll last week being 9-points for Hillz was a huge exhale thing for Dems. Dunno if it's 2-points now, but close to 100% sure HRC wasn't winning the state by 9 last week.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:2-point poll in PA is probably wrong. But that same poll last week being 9-points for Hillz was a huge exhale thing for Dems. Dunno if it's 2-points now, but close to 100% sure HRC wasn't winning the state by 9 last week.

Don't get things like this. Where are the seven percent of the state that just aimlessly are incapable of deciding

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:2-point poll in PA is probably wrong. But that same poll last week being 9-points for Hillz was a huge exhale thing for Dems. Dunno if it's 2-points now, but close to 100% sure HRC wasn't winning the state by 9 last week.

Don't get things like this. Where are the seven percent of the state that just aimlessly are incapable of deciding