A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.

It should be brought up, I think, that The Troubles of Northern Ireland are still a part of living memory having only ended (in so much as the violence has for the most part effectively ended) 17 years ago, so there's going to be a lot more people who will take offence compared to the Confederate/Unionist thing.

 d-usa wrote:
Biden is our Prince Phillip.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think he might be alluding that Clinton (Hilary) might have been hacked and not know it.

There’s no evidence that Clinton’s e-mail server was linked to those or any other specific attacks. And it's worth noting that the State Department’s e-mail domain does not have SPF enabled. Thus, experts point out, it may also have been vulnerable to hacking during her time as secretary.

 d-usa wrote:
Biden is our Prince Phillip.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think he might be alluding that Clinton (Hilary) might have been hacked and not know it.

o
Only if we are being completely dishonest.

There’s no evidence that Clinton’s e-mail server was linked to those or any other specific attacks. And it's worth noting that the State Department’s e-mail domain does not have SPF enabled. Thus, experts point out, it may also have been vulnerable to hacking during her time as secretary.

I mean, it's in the second article that there's no evidence of a link. And in the first article that these aren't the first hacks DoS has suffered.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyway, say this article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html
A recent poll using a bunch of potential match-ups for the next election results in HRC having at least 10 point lead over everyone else. This poll was conducted after the whole email thing was in the news. I'm actually surprised Jeb Bush did so well in the polling, given his last name and all the political baggage that goes with it. Most of the match-ups are roughly the same results, so it may just be that the poll randomly only got 40-something% Republicans responding, but it could also just be that there are enough people out there who, basically, just don't know the Republican potentials compared to what they know about HRC. Once the field narrows down a bit and more information gets out to the masses, it may get more interesting. But, at this point, do the Republicans really have a powerhouse they can throw up against HRC?

squidhills wrote:

In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.

Bran Dawri wrote:

squidhills wrote:

In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.

So they're basically calling them Dutchmen? How is that an insult?

FYI, William of Orange wasn't just a prominent Protestant leader, he was also the founder of the Netherlands as an independent country (although actual independence after the closure of the 80 Years War wasn't achieved until long after his death at the hands of a Spanish assassin).

[/thread derail]

 Psienesis wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.

It should be brought up, I think, that The Troubles of Northern Ireland are still a part of living memory having only ended (in so much as the violence has for the most part effectively ended) 17 years ago, so there's going to be a lot more people who will take offence compared to the Confederate/Unionist thing.

Ehm... haven't been to the South recently, have you?

Yes, the Civil War ended 150 years ago. No, the South hasn't forgotten. The legacies of the Civil War, and of the post-war South, are still alive and well in many communities down there. This is where we get things like Ferguson. In fact, the argument could be made that the Civil War did not really end until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the abolishment of "separate but (not really) equal" and Jim Crow laws. Of course, the argument can also be made that the Civil War didn't really end then, either.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Biden is our Prince Phillip.

Except Biden actually has political power

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Please refer to "The Troubles" and then take a guess as to why people might get annoyed.

While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.

"In Australia, and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. "It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything."

Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.

As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.

In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that "at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment."

During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.

Getting more people to vote would "completely change the political map in this country," Obama said.

Also reports the Associated Press:

"Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Please refer to "The Troubles" and then take a guess as to why people might get annoyed.

It goes back much, much further than The Troubles

 Ouze wrote:
Not a lot of Syracuse fans in Ireland, sounds like.

 Ouze wrote:
Not a lot of Syracuse fans in Ireland, sounds like.

 whembly wrote:


Obama broaches the idea of mandatory voting

While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.

"In Australia, and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. "It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything."

Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.

As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.

In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that "at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment."

During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.

Getting more people to vote would "completely change the political map in this country," Obama said.

Also reports the Associated Press:

"Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse."

Remind me again how he's a Constitutional Scholar?

 Jihadin wrote:
Believe it was mention on media that Australia has that, mandatory voting.

 d-usa wrote:
Mandatory voting? No.

Changing the voting date to Sunday (I realize that this would require a constitutional amendment) and/or having a meaningful system in place to really enable people to vote (including paid time off to vote).

 d-usa wrote:
Mandatory voting? No.

Changing the voting date to Sunday (I realize that this would require a constitutional amendment) and/or having a meaningful system in place to really enable people to vote (including paid time off to vote).

 d-usa wrote:
Federal Holidays do not require employees to give anybody off nor does it require pay if they do decide to give you time off. So it would not do anything to make voting easier.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
But, I don't think the Republicans would ever truly want every citizen to vote. After all, they already believe that at least 47% will automatically vote Democrat.

 Jihadin wrote:
Believe it was mention on media that Australia has that, mandatory voting.

 d-usa wrote:
Federal Holidays do not require employees to give anybody off nor does it require pay if they do decide to give you time off. So it would not do anything to make voting easier.