Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-time-for-everything dept.

For the first time since President Obama took office in 2009, Congress has overridden his veto.

The U.S. Senate voted 97-1 to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The lone dissenting vote was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who has "always had the president's back":

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked "damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries" and "could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts." Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto. CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill's "grave implications for the national security of the United States" in a statement Wednesday.

The House of Representatives voted 348-to-77:

Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

See also: The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 by the New York Times Editorial Board and this article in the Saudi Gazette.

Previously: President Obama to Veto Bill Allowing September 11 Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:36PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:36PM (#407888) Journal

    "lame duck"?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:45PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:45PM (#407894) Journal

    Well, considering the hate Obama has had to deal with from the other side of the house during his administration, I think he's done well to get almost all the way through 2 terms without a single veto. As I understand it no president has made a full two terms without being vetoed in decades.

    I can see why he wanted this to pass, and why his opponents thought it would be fun to block it, and I now eagerly anticipate the blowback when other countries decide that turnabout is fair play, and they can sue the US govt for illegal invasions / bombings / drone strikes / miscellaneous war crimes.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:15PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:15PM (#407906) Journal

      The precedent is terrible, but that's long term consequences and this is congress. They're like... complete opposites.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:48PM

        by isostatic (365) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:48PM (#408006) Journal

        The precedent is terrible, but that's long term consequences and this is congress. They're like... complete opposites.

        I thought the opposite of congress was progress?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:52PM (#408171)

          I thought the opposite of congress was progressive?

          ftfy

          despite obama's rhetoric, the purpose of congress isn't too "compromise" at all but to put the brakes on over-regulation

          if someone wanted to invade your home, would you compromise with the invader?

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:04PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:04PM (#408099)

        I agree that the precedent is economically terrible for the US government, and by extension us as the tax payers. But, I'm not so sure it's actually terrible going forward - having to face, say, hundreds of thousands of private lawsuits for our crimes in the Middle East might serve to discourage reckless military and covert interventions in the future. Both by the US and other nations. Why should governments get a free pass for committing crimes that would send any private individual through the wringer?

        • (Score: 2) by tynin on Friday September 30 2016, @12:39AM

          by tynin (2013) on Friday September 30 2016, @12:39AM (#408185) Journal

          You and I came to the same realization. No amount of lawsuits will amount to the kind of treasure we burn through every week waging our little wars all across the globe. I hope this ends up being a net positive and not just the new cost of "business as usual". Oh fuck... I think it might just be the new cost.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday September 30 2016, @05:05PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday September 30 2016, @05:05PM (#408442)

            It may indeed just be the new cost - but every increase in cost discourages partaking in more marginal activities, so it's still a win. And the course of the world is change by many small victories - for all the hoopla, the large victories usually prove to be more form than substance.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday September 30 2016, @08:12AM

        by driverless (4770) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:12AM (#408283)

        The precedent is terrible

        The current precedent isn't really that bad, if you consider the precedent before home, or whichever of Trump or Hillary will be the next precedent.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:24PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:24PM (#407914) Journal

      We do all understand that the House of Saud is no ally of the United States? Saud is an ally of Saud, and no one else.

      That blowback? Maybe it's time, or even past time for some blowback. "We the People" have little to no interest in killing brown people scattered around the world. Every bit of that is done for corporate interests, and shady government interests. Blowback. If Dick Cheney could be prosecuted for his idiotic justifications for torture, I'd be behind that 100%. Put Bush on trial for being a malleable idiot, and for invading Iraq. Get all the executives of Haliburton too. We're to stupid to clean house for ourselves, so let the world have our criminals. Let them go after the entire military industrial complex. Maybe it's time for us to do some penance.

      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:39PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:39PM (#407924) Journal

        No disagreement here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:32PM (#407990)

          You know what they say about a broken clock...

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:02PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:02PM (#408013)

            The kind that display 88:88:88, the kind that displays nothing, or the kind that would fetch just enough at the pawn shop to afford on last hit?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:07PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:07PM (#408018) Journal

        If Dick Cheney could be prosecuted for his idiotic justifications for torture, I'd be behind that 100%. Put Bush on trial for being a malleable idiot, and for invading Iraq. Get all the executives of Haliburton too. We're to stupid to clean house for ourselves, so let the world have our criminals. Let them go after the entire military industrial complex. Maybe it's time for us to do some penance.

        There's a difference between criminal trials and civil suits. No country at present is going to try to indict a major U.S. leader for war crimes or something. Maybe it could be possible in a few decades, if trends keep going the way they are. But for most countries business interests will hold sway even if there was some political will to try something like that.

        And that latter point goes for civil suits too. Most countries have a lot more to lose by attacking U.S. business interests than they'd get in return for attacking them legally. I could potentially see a well-targeted lawsuit aimed at a U.S. corporation (which makes clear that the blame is being placed solely on clearly illegal actors of that corporation, to avoid spooking other business interests). But suing people like Bush and Cheney? It might get cheers from lots of people, but again, most countries would probably lose a LOT more financially than they could ever gain in a lawsuit.

        So, unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be the way to bring down the "entire military industrial complex." Not when the U.S. continues to wield so much political and corporate power. Eventually, that may change, but it's not likely to be soon.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:33PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:33PM (#408033) Journal

          Well, of course we'll just ignore any judgements against us, anyway. But, I do look forward to getting sued next time we accidentally drone-bomb a wedding.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:02PM

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:02PM (#408066) Journal
          "It might get cheers from lots of people, but again, most countries would probably lose a LOT more financially than they could ever gain in a lawsuit.

          So, unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be the way to bring down the "entire military industrial complex."

          Which means the objection was disingenuous BS now doesn't it?
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:11PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:11PM (#408159)

          No country at present is going to try to indict a major U.S. leader for war crimes or something.

          And that's a problem, because according to treaties the US has signed, the US should be indicting major US leaders for war crimes. The simple fact is that the US is effectively a "rogue nation" that cannot be trusted to hold to any of its agreements.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:25PM (#408055)

        The US loves to suck Saudi cock because it's the only way they can keep the Cash ---> Oil Weapons ----> Cash pump going. If Saudi stops buying expensive US military toys OR decides not to sell oil to the US again like in the 1970's the US is royally fucked.

        • (Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:13PM

          by weeds (611) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:13PM (#408074) Journal

          Top 5 US oil imports:
          Canada................40%
          Saudi Arabia.........11%
          Venezuela..............9%
          Mexico...................8%
          Colombia................4%

          http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [eia.gov]

          But it's way more fun to just spout off about Saudi Arabia and guns and the corruption of the US government. All the while we were paying $140 for a barrel of oil, it was our best buddies in Canada that were making all the $$.

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:06PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:06PM (#408100) Journal

            Is it sustainable? A lot of Canada's oil is in oil sands, which is only economic at high oil prices. And fracking in the U.S. is similar. Saudi Arabia and OPEC have been keeping prices low in order to hurt Iran or the United States, depending on who you ask. It was only a couple days ago that OPEC agreed to the possibility of a tiny production cut.

            U.S. oil, gas industry sheds 100,000 jobs in slump: Kemp [reuters.com]
            Oil companies face worker shortages after 350,000 layoffs [usatoday.com]
            Texas has lost 84,000 oil and gas jobs in the oil bust [fuelfix.com]
            Cheap oil has killed nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs [cnn.com]

            Women make up vast majority of those leaving Alberta, Statistics Canada data suggests [www.cbc.ca]

            Before the recession hit, many women were moving into the construction industry as men filled the plentiful jobs in the oil and gas sector, said Pallavi Banerjee, a sociologist at the University of Calgary. "Now, with the economy tanking, men who have been laid off from oil and gas are re-entering construction. Jobs are anyway scarce in construction, so women are probably being driven out of the industry," Banerjee said. Many immigrant women who came to Alberta and Calgary during the boom for jobs in the service industry are also now probably returning to Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, she added.

            Canadian hiring rebounds but 'economic lethargy' still a concern [theglobeandmail.com]

            Weak oil prices and wildfires in Alberta have contributed to Canada’s sluggish economy and tepid job creation. The country’s economy shrank 1.6 per cent in the second quarter, its worst performance since the Great Recession.

            OPEC production deal greeted with skepticism in Canada [thestar.com]

            But many analysts noted that the deal by the 14-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Algeria on Wednesday was merely an agreement to look at possibly cutting production to between 32.5 million and 33 million barrels a day. That would be down from August’s production rate of 33.2 million barrels a day – but it would shave only 700,000 barrels a day, some 2 per cent of overall production. Crude oil was selling for more than $100 (U.S.) a barrel in the summer of 2014, before bottoming out below $30 a barrel in January. That fall largely came from a boom in U.S. shale oil production and countries like Saudi Arabia choosing to continue to pump to hold onto market share.

            The economies of oil-producing provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have suffered amid persistent low prices. Oil producers have shuttered projects and eased off on production. Workers have been laid off, with tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs lost. Alberta’s current recession looks like it will be the longest and worst in the province’s history.

            Petronas to review Canada project [nst.com.my]

            Early this year, Petronas announced it would cut spending by up to RM50 billion over four years in response to the oil price slump. On the possible second wave of layoffs in Petronas, Wan Zulkiflee said: “We always look at the business and the opportunities for optimising, and of course we will do that.” In March, Petronas announced the layoff of about 1,000 employees whose positions were made redundant under its transformation exercise. It was the first major decision it made since oil prices began to plummet in June 2014. It is learnt that the company is undergoing another manpower restructuring exercise involving its non-performing staff in coping with the prolonged low oil prices.

            So maybe users should be spouting off about Saudi Arabia.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 30 2016, @02:09AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 30 2016, @02:09AM (#408204) Journal

              Is it sustainable? A lot of Canada's oil is in oil sands, which is only economic at high oil prices.

              Well, are low oil prices sustainable?

              • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 30 2016, @02:23AM

                by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday September 30 2016, @02:23AM (#408207) Journal

                Possibly. Production is very high, and demand growth is weak [cnbc.com]. Green energy mandates and emissions targets could drive demand down even further. Places like Alberta will experience a yo-yo effect with any price increase/decrease cycle.

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
              • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 30 2016, @02:47AM

                by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday September 30 2016, @02:47AM (#408216) Journal

                Saudi Arabia could also play a little game where they keep production high enough to price out certain sources like the oil sands and U.S. fracking, with the intent of eliminating all of their oil reserves over a certain timeframe.

                Let's say that Saudi Arabia has about 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil in reserve. That is their proven oil reserves and a little extra undiscovered. Production has fluctuated between 8-11 million barrels a day over the years. At 15 million barrels per day of production, they would have just under 55 years of supply. If they can get that supply out of the ground and invest the profits in solar, fusion, playgrounds for the rich, land, etc. then they may be able to get out of the oil business around the time demand has hit rock bottom. 2071 is a pretty aggressive target for the world to be using lots of electric cars, solar, and fusion, but it's not completely unrealistic. Apparently, Saudi Arabia wants to try 12.5 million barrels a day. That would yield 65.7 years and another decade to wean the world off oil.

                The gamble is to not leave any oil in the ground by the emergence of a post-oil planet, while forcing Alberta, Canada and others to leave their oil in the ground throughout. Strategic investment can help the Saudis or others buy a stake in the next energy boom. The obvious problem here is that you have to believe fusion, etc. will become viable within 50 years. The situation should become more clear soon. [nextbigfuture.com]

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by weeds on Friday September 30 2016, @12:46PM

              by weeds (611) on Friday September 30 2016, @12:46PM (#408351) Journal

              Your point is that when oil prices are low those who produce a lot of oil are hurt.
              OK, but you forgot - when oil prices are high, those who produce a lot benefit.
              This applies to the US, Brazil and any other oil producing country (don't forget Russia). The ups and downs are controlled by a cartel, not a free market and certainly not by a perfect market.
              The fact that Canada has been financially disadvantaged by low oil prices doesn't change that fact that they send us the huge majority of our oil. They made gobs of money selling oil to the US when prices were high. I don't begrudge them that, hey, it's a free market, oh wait, no it's not, it's a cartel. You don't like the cartel, don't buy their oil. We don't! we buy Canadian oil and guess what? They charge cartel prices. I might have some sympathy for them if they sold us oil under the cartel rate, but they didn't. If your are going to play in that sandbox, then be prepared.

    • (Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:45PM

      by fnj (1654) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:45PM (#407929)

      As I understand it no president has made a full two terms without being vetoed in decades.

      Are you really that ignorant? A president is not vetoed. A president vetoes a bill passed by congress.

      I can see why he wanted this to pass

      WTF? Wanted what to pass? The bill? He blocked it with a veto, which has now been overridden by wiser heads. That's the whole point.

      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54PM (#407934) Journal

        OK, sure. I am somewhat ignorant of the finer points of the political system of a country half a world away. So sue me (subject to relevant dumb legislation).

        So it wasn't Obama's legislation, it was his veto that got vetoed... whatever. My point still stands: This something that happens to most presidents. The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago. Calling Obama a "lame duck" because of it is not accurate. That is all.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:52PM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:52PM (#407966)

          sigh
          when you dont do shit, you dont get shit vetoed...
          virtually the only thing of any significant opposition was the health insurance profit guaranteed monopoly bill, which was essentially a rethug bill repackaged as a trojan horse to force us to buy shit insurance...
          and yet that crap passed, too...

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM (#408037) Journal

            when you dont do shit, you dont get shit vetoed...

            Barack Obama sponsored 137 bills from January 4, 2005 until November 16, 2008. Two became law. [wikipedia.org]
             
            Looks like he got 135 thing vetoed. I'm sure the Republicans' well documented strategy of unprecedented obstructionism had nothing to do with that.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 30 2016, @04:15AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 30 2016, @04:15AM (#408237) Journal

              Looks like he got 135 thing vetoed.

              Veto means a right to reject a decision of a group, particularly a legislature.

              I'm sure the Republicans' well documented strategy of unprecedented obstructionism had nothing to do with that.

              I think it's more Obama and the Democrat Congressional leaders' remarkable incompetence. They had a window of two years in which to do just about anything they wanted. And the end result is a bunch of complaints about "unprecedented obstructionism". Oh well, it wasn't like they were going to pass anything I'd approve of anyway so I'm just not feeling your disapproval.

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:29PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:29PM (#407987) Journal

          The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago.

          Huh? Kennedy? Two terms? You do know he was inaugurated in 1961 and assassinated in 1963? He wasn't even president for three years.

          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:39PM

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:39PM (#407998) Journal

            FYI - the last President to go a full two terms without a veto overridden was Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. (Also, it should be noted, at that point in history there had never been a veto override yet in the U.S.; vetos in general were quite rare under the first few presidents.)

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by lcklspckl on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:39PM

          by lcklspckl (830) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:39PM (#408088)

          Technically Obama is not a lame duck as his predecessor has not been elected, however in the minds of some Obama is not/was never president and they were waiting for the next president to take the seat and so colloquially it's correct. It doesn't mean ineffectual president or president that has had his veto over-ridden.

          Here's a short instructional video on how bills become bills and then laws in the great ole U.S. o' A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0 [youtube.com] :P

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 30 2016, @12:26AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday September 30 2016, @12:26AM (#408179) Homepage Journal

            Here's a short instructional video on how bills become bills and then laws in the great ole U.S. o' A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0 [youtube.com]

            Thank you, sir! I'll see your Schoolhouse Rock and raise you a primer on amending the constitution [youtube.com]. ;)

            And here's something for those who really want to see the sausage making in progress [youtube.com].

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 1) by lcklspckl on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16AM

              by lcklspckl (830) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16AM (#408192)

              Very instructive indeed. :)

              I did mean successor in my original post about lame-duckery. Nothing like completely mucking the pedantry with the completely opposite word choice.

          • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday September 30 2016, @08:27AM

            by TheRaven (270) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:27AM (#408290) Journal

            Technically Obama is not a lame duck as his predecessor has not been elected

            I'm pretty sure Bush was elected in 2004, even if the 2000 elections were somewhat dubious.

            --
            sudo mod me up
            • (Score: 1) by lcklspckl on Friday September 30 2016, @06:26PM

              by lcklspckl (830) on Friday September 30 2016, @06:26PM (#408484)

              Touché, human! You are correct, of course. I tried to correct myself, but it was too late.

              • (Score: 3, Funny) by TheRaven on Monday October 03 2016, @12:10PM

                by TheRaven (270) on Monday October 03 2016, @12:10PM (#409365) Journal
                I suspect that there is a universal rule of the Internet that whenever you italicise a single word in a sentence, that will be the one that contains the typo. If not, then please name the rule after me.
                --
                sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:08PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:08PM (#408156) Homepage Journal

          OK, sure. I am somewhat ignorant of the finer points of the political system of a country half a world away. So sue me (subject to relevant dumb legislation).

          So it wasn't Obama's legislation, it was his veto that got vetoed... whatever. My point still stands: This something that happens to most presidents. The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago. Calling Obama a "lame duck" because of it is not accurate. That is all.

          Since you're from elsewhere, I'll provide you with a little information.

          Actually, Kennedy didn't even finish *one* term. He was assassinated before finishing his first term. Lyndon Baines Johnson (who was Vice President) finished Kennedy's first term and was elected to his own first term in November, 1964. Johnson did not seek re-election in 1968.

          Calling President Obama a "lame duck" is unrelated to this particular event (the override of his veto). I'll explain.

          First, a little background: Since we do *not* have a parliamentary system, we don't immediately form a new government after an election. Members of Congress who are elected (or re-elected) are sworn in to office on 1 January of the year following the election (terms are two years for members of the house of representatives, and six years for members of the senate) and the newly elected (or re-elected) president (who is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms) is sworn in on 20 January of the year following the election.

          Since election day is on the first Tuesday of November, that means for about two months both the current president and the current congress are still in office, but given that the president (assuming it's a new president, as it will be early next year) and the congress will turn over, those folks don't have a whole lot of political capital during that time. Both the president and congress are generally referred to as "lame ducks" (more accurately, congress is termed to be in "lame duck session") for this reason.

          However, the term "lame duck" is (IMHO) slightly misused here. Traditionally, it's used to describe a Congress (or a president), *after* the election, that is still in power until a new president or a new congress is sworn in. Given that Obama cannot run for a third term, the appellation is correct, but as I said, it's generally used after the election in November.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:16PM

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:16PM (#408077) Journal
      "Well, considering the hate Obama has had to deal with"

      Hate, really?

      Having people disagree with your position and vote against it occasionally is hate now?

      Or did something really crazy happen there in DC that I missed?

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:18PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:18PM (#408162) Homepage Journal

        Having people disagree with your position and vote against it occasionally is hate now?

        That's stretching the truth, even for you Arik.

        Or did something really crazy happen there in DC that I missed?

        Yes, you did. [youtube.com] Only [pbs.org] the last eight years [newser.com].

        Sigh.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 1) by Arik on Monday October 03 2016, @12:39AM

          by Arik (4543) on Monday October 03 2016, @12:39AM (#409199) Journal
          The birther retardation was not something I ever gave any credence.

          If he had been born in Kenya it would have absolutely zero impact on his legal status. His mother was a US citizen, he is therefore natural born.

          The best I know this meme originated from the Clinton campaign during the primary fight before the first Obama nomination. Yes, I know someone dug up a forum post from a few months earlier that may well be where they got the idea, but it's clear they were the ones that kept pushing it trying to get it to stick. I've heard this meme for years and years in the media as an example of the horrible hatred of Republicans but everyone I know is a Republican and none of them bring it up. Only the demonicrat media seem to even remember it, and only as a stick with which to beat us all indiscriminately, which hardly seems fair at all.

          I'm really not sure how that translates into 'hate' or at least into significantly more hate than other Presidents have dealt with in the past. Still looks like bullshit to me.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:21PM

      by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:21PM (#408124) Homepage
      Uhh - President Obama was opposed to this bill - that's why he vetoed it. The Congress overrode his veto, thus causing the bill to become law over his objections.

      Seriously, does anyone think that any real ties can be shown, especially after all this time, between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers? I really can't imagine that the Saudi government was in any way connected to these attacks - besides, they were an inside job by the Bush Administration anyway, weren't they?