Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/01/13 16:20:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: First of all, I'm happy the sailors are back.
To answer your question, no... in the grand scheme of things, we're not doing "ok".
Consider this, would the UK do this if our boats accidently drifted into their waters? (at least the Brits would offer tea or something... no? )
If our “new best buds in the ME” saw two of our small vessels in their water they could easily have approached and asked if the sailors required assistance. If the answer was yes, then help could be rendered. If our sailors declined they could have remained in the area and waited for another US vessel to arrive.
This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Well, it's a little unreasonable to contrast a response from the UK - our most stalwart international ally - with guys who we literally still have sanctions on and were recently calling part of the Axis of Evil. Just because we're gotten some tentative nuclear discussions going with them doesn't mean we're allies.
The fact they were briefly detained and then released is pretty normal, I think. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if it hadn't been for those nuclear talks - the ones that Obama was weak for appeasing to, or whatever - that the detention wouldn't have been very brief at all. My guess is those sailors would have been detained until a formal apology was issued. Maybe even two sorries.
What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 16:21:59
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/13 16:24:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If Obama picked up Iranian boats and released them the same folks would be screaming Boatgazi and saying how they would have held them prisoners until Iran defeats Isis.
2016/01/13 16:25:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
And as people have continually pointed out, it's easy to do all that when you've restructured voting districts across the country to rig the race
Political critters will push for changes to strengthen the incumbent... so don't act like only Republicans does this.
So yeah, the Republicans won,
Glad it's acknowledge.
but we can have some perspective on how that happened and what it means Namely that the Reds will probably keep the House and maybe even the Senate in 2016.
Actually, I don't think they'll hang onto the Senate.
None of the stuff that helps them do that is going to be much help in the Presidential
Oh, you aint wrong... but, having a divided government is better than the gak we got in 2008-2010 when Democrats held all three.
How was President Romney's State of the Union address ?
Was it as good as McCain's unifying inaugural address -- or that destined to be quoted-through-the-ages speech VP Palin made after the umpteenth mass shooting ..?
whembly wrote: First of all, I'm happy the sailors are back.
To answer your question, no... in the grand scheme of things, we're not doing "ok".
Consider this, would the UK do this if our boats accidently drifted into their waters? (at least the Brits would offer tea or something... no? )
If our “new best buds in the ME” saw two of our small vessels in their water they could easily have approached and asked if the sailors required assistance. If the answer was yes, then help could be rendered. If our sailors declined they could have remained in the area and waited for another US vessel to arrive.
This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Well, it's a little unreasonable to contrast a response from the UK - our most stalwart international ally - with guys who we literally still have sanctions on and were recently calling part of the Axis of Evil. Just because we're gotten some tentative nuclear discussions going with them doesn't mean we're allies.
The fact they were briefly detained and then released is pretty normal, I think. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if it hadn't been for those nuclear talks - the ones that Obama was weak for appeasing to, or whatever - that the detention wouldn't have been very brief at all. My guess is those sailors would have been detained until a formal apology was issued. Maybe even two sorries.
What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
Namely the same sort of thing that the USN is known to do in that region. We've helped out Iranian military/civvies distressed in that region w/o doing what the Iranian Guard did...
The milblogs are hopping mad about this.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 16:32:11
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/13 16:42:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
An interesting opinion piece on Cruz and his eligibility or lack thereof to hold the office of POTUS. Be interesting to see how this plays out. Should Cruz be able to win the nomination, you can bet someone out there will file a lawsuit.
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien — that is, Congress may remove an alien’s legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.
Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.
In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.
First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.
Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any U.S. sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a “longstanding tradition” and conclude that the framers followed that law because they “would have been intimately familiar with these statutes.” But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.
Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase “natural born,” they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should “be considered as” such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase “natural born,” and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.
When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.
2016/01/13 16:45:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What's hilarious is that the 'Cruz isn't a US citizen' thing is a much lower key story than all the raging about how Obama was a secret Muslim born in Kenya
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 16:47:09
Ouze wrote: What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
Namely the same sort of thing that the USN is known to do in that region. We've helped out Iranian military/civvies distressed in that region w/o doing what the Iranian Guard did...
The milblogs are hopping mad about this.
The milblogs have been perpetually butthurt about Obama simply being president since he was sworn in. That's their default speed and it's not going to change until a Republican becomes president, because the "Democrats are weak and hate the military" meme is never going to die.
Circling back though, what specifically? What specific thing should we have done, and how would it have improved over what actually happened?
Also, the Navy assisting Iranian sailors in distress\hijacked by pirates\etc in Iranian or International waters isn't an apples to apples comparison. Do you believe if 2 boats loaded with Quds Force guys ran aground or drifted into Florida, we'd let them go without questioning them at all?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 16:50:59
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/13 16:50:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
2016/01/13 16:55:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
My guess is they would deny cert without comment. They don't want any part of that - it needs to be remedied by Congress. I use the term remedied loosely because it's not really a problem.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/13 16:58:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Circling back though, what specifically? What specific thing should we have done, and how would it have improved over what actually happened?
Are you willing to submit that we don't know the full story yet?
If these two boats truly been “in distress,” then would it not be customary to allow our own navy to effect a rescue under the watchful gaze of the Iranian Navy?
Again, if they were "in distress"... where the feth the other USN ships?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/13 16:59:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What specific thing should we have done,
I believe the answer is something along the lines of illegally traded arms to the Ayatollahs and used the money to fund terrorism in Central America.
..nah, that'd never work.
and how would it have improved over what actually happened?
4 words :
PRIME TIME DRAMA SERIES.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/01/13 17:11:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ideally we'd have Joaquim de Almeida as the evil Iranian admiral, Michael Biehn as the brave Navy commander who tries to get them out and gets shut down by the state department, and I think the History Channel had a good casting for Obama.
Spoiler:
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/13 17:12:07
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
My guess is they would deny cert without comment. They don't want any part of that - it needs to be remedied by Congress. I use the term remedied loosely because it's not really a problem.
Well, it may not be a big problem for you and me and America, but it would certainly be a problem for Cruz.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 17:12:55
2016/01/13 17:13:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well, heres Ted Cruz's argument. I don't find it convincing. John McCain and George Romney never had a lawsuit filed challenging their eligibility for office.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 17:23:06
2016/01/13 17:25:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Well, heres Ted Cruz's argument. I don't find it convincing. John McCain and George Romney never had a lawsuit filed challenging their eligibility for office.
While I don't know the details of the Romney situation, the McCain one is quite simple: Yes, he was born in Panama, but he was born in an American enclosure, which, similar to US military bases abroad, is considered sovereign US Territory.
2016/01/13 17:25:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
CNN had an article written by Cruz's old college law professor stating that, ironically, if SCOTUS were filled with the kind of judges Cruz himself has said he wants...he would lose the case.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/01/13 18:18:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think it would depend on what the first court with the case does. They could dismiss it. They could hear it and say "it's a political question" i.e. pass the buck. They could also declare "no he can't" or "yes he can." I think it more likely a court would declare it a political question.
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
No it won't since it's already clear. Cruz was a US citizen at birth because he had at least 1 parent who was a US citizen. The amendment that confers citizenship to anyone born in the US was passed after the civil war to confer citizenship on the recently freed slaves. We'd already been electing natural born citizens for a century prior. It's only an issue for lazy "journalists" who write inane click bait articles.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/01/13 19:48:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
)
