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.

whembly wrote:Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.

whembly wrote:All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.

Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?

I feel like you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.

To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.

Yeah, that was my point - "limited government" is a totally meaningless phrase. It's just a shorthand for "except the stuff I like".

 whembly wrote:

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

 Frazzled wrote:
Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.

Duverger's Law.

Majoritarian, First-Past-the-Post electoral Systems always produce two parties, except in the case of a strongly unified regional and/or ethnic demographic in the country.

Currently, we are, in the USA, in the process of having one party reduced to a "Regional or Ethnic Party," and the other beginning to split into a Centrist and a Progressive Wing.

The Outcome of this next Presidential Election will basically determine if the GOP lives as a viable national party (in which case it will systematically rig electoral mechanics in its favor for close to the next century), or if it dies as a major party, and the electoral rigging conducted since 1995 is undone by a new SCOTUS with a Progressive Majority, putting the Federal Government back into the Control of the Democrats (who would then fragment into a Centrist and Leftist Wing).

This election is really about the Democratic Primary in that regard, and is one of the reasons Sanders presents such a danger to the Democrats. If he wins the party nomination, he stands a very small chance of winning the national election: The GOP not only lives, but it sees the culmination of its gerrymandering and corporatist/theocratic planning pay off. Of course, Sanders could win the National Election (possible, but not probable).

But, if Hillary goes to the National Elections, she will likely win (Polls among Independents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin show her beating any GOP candidate by double digits - Jeb by only 7% - 11%, but the rest by pretty significant percentages), and she will then likely serve two terms, appoint four Justices (two of whom will be Conservatives), flipping the SCOTUS from a 5:4 conservative leaning majority to a 6:3 Progressive Majority (and undoing many of the unpopular decisions of the Roberts Court, such as Citizen's United, and the many Voter Fraud laws, as well as restoring the Civil Rights Act voting restrictions - Oh! And undoing the Gerrymandering of the GOP which currently gives them control of Congress).

So....

Duverger's Law. . .

That's why we don't have more than two viable parties.

We would need some other electoral mechanism to support more than two (or a regional or ethnic demographic).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.

That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.

Again, Called "Duverger's Law" after the political scientist who discovered the correlation between electoral mechanics and political parties, Maurice Duverger.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.

That and watching part of her interview earlier today on CNN bored me to death. Clinton clearly hates the press, I mean it is so obvious.

Only polls show Hillary beating ANY GOP Nominee by 10% to 30% (depending upon the match-up).

The absolute best any proposed matchup came was 7% - 11% loss by Jeb Bush to Hillary Clinton.

The whole "She is the Democrat's Romney" is just a conservative Wet Dream, and Projection, because they seem to lack the imagination to actually consider new possibilities, and seem to be stuck with "I know you are, but what am I?" (which this is just another instance of).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Repeal the ACA and I am dead. It is as simple as that.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.

He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house

One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.

Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).

It should be a very interesting read.

MB

Looks like the Iran nuclear deal is done and dusted. Just a few t's to cross and a few i's to dot.

Already, though, the backlash has begun. On Al Jazeera, I saw the Israeli Prime Minister make a plea that was clearly targeted at elements of the Republican party.

And of course, Congress has to get involved in any ratification of the Iran nuclear deal.

Will they back it?

Ouze wrote:
Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?

What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, that was my point - "limited government" is a totally meaningless phrase. It's just a shorthand for "except the stuff I like".

I always thought the objective of limited government was to preserve individual liberty and protect private property.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.

whembly wrote:All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.

Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?

I feel like you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.

Seeing as enforcing immigration is one of the things the Constitution does give the Feds the responsibility and authority to do, your point doesn't seem very valid.

Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

I've just seen Obama and Biden do the press conference on this. It's a done deal, save for some minor tweaks to iron out

Obama quick to threaten Congress with the veto, if they don't play ball.

Obama also threatening Iran with a return of 'snap sanctions' if they hinder inspectors, but that might be easier said than done.

I'm just wondering which of the Republican candidates for President will be the first to threaten Iran with invasion on this

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Eh? GOP Candidates wanting to kill who and why?

Ouze wrote:
you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.

Then you totally missed my position.

When I say, "limited government" or "let the local people decide". That's not me saying they should be able to BREAK. FEDERAL. LAWS. AT. THE. SAME. TIME.

Really Ouze?!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.

Pretty much.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?

We're not politicians

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?

Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?

Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.

You bolo'ed your delivery though by mentioning Same Sex Marriage with Immigration laws

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?

I'm for getting out of there. The region is blowing up. Now its going to go rocketing forward to the first nuclear exchange.
If Israel doesn't basically declare war in the next year, the gulf powers and Egypt will move to nuke up via purchases from Pakistan/Russia. Several have already effectively said it.

The Ottoman/Persian wars have returned but this time with tanks and terrorists. Soon it will be with nukes.
Best we get out.

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?

Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.

You bolo'ed your delivery though by mentioning Same Sex Marriage with Immigration laws

True... I was being snarky.

Because if a city disagrees with certain laws state/federal... what's to stop them by say "nah... we ain't doing that".

Ouze was trying to bash me by being inconsistent with my "limited government" stance.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?

I'm for getting out of there. The region is blowing up. Now its going to go rocketing forward to the first nuclear exchange.
If Israel doesn't basically declare war in the next year, the gulf powers and Egypt will move to nuke up via purchases from Pakistan/Russia. Several have already effectively said it.

The Ottoman/Persian wars have returned but this time with tanks and terrorists. Soon it will be with nukes.
Best we get out.

I hope you're wrong on that, but sadly, I fear you may be proven right...

BeAfraid wrote:


One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.

Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).

It should be a very interesting read.

MB

How much info is he using from Venona project or the opened Soviet archives?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Ouze wrote:
Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?

What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?

Good question. How many states have legalized marijuana at this point, contrary to Federal law?

Admittedly, immigration is on a whole different level compared to a single substance in the Controlled Substances Act. But it is something of a point to be made that the GOP likes to bang the drum of states' rights...except when they don't agree with what the states are doing.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Ouze wrote:
Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?

What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?

Good question. How many states have legalized marijuana at this point, contrary to Federal law?

Admittedly, immigration is on a whole different level compared to a single substance in the Controlled Substances Act. But it is something of a point to be made that the GOP likes to bang the drum of states' rights...except when they don't agree with what the states are doing.

Immigration is clearly the Feds responsibility. Which is why it does not enter into a states rights argument. Finding where the feds have authority granted by the constitution to outlaw substances is a bit harder. Obviously the 18th Amendment gives precedence to do so, but the 21st kind of trumps that one.

SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.

 whembly wrote:

Ouze wrote:
you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.

Then you totally missed my position.

When I say, "limited government" or "let the local people decide". That's not me saying they should be able to BREAK. FEDERAL. LAWS. AT. THE. SAME. TIME.

Really Ouze?!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.

Pretty much.

We can discuss it here because we're obvious free to do so but the matter has already been decided. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that states cannot nullify federal laws. There is no legal way for states or municipalities to refuse to obey federal laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

The issue with Colorado's legalization of marijuana is going to get struck down by the courts sometime this year most likely. Neighboring states are suing Colorado for the negative impact of it's marijuana legalization (higher crime rates and policing costs) and Colorado's defense is that it's not their fault that the Federal govt has been directed by the current administration to choose not to enforce standing federal drug laws in Colorado. There is no legal mechanism through which either states or federal agencies can pick and choose what federal laws have to be adhered to and enforced. Every federal law has equal standing and needs to be enforced. Again, we've had the Nullification debate in this country multiple times across multiple centuries and every time the courts have ruled that federal laws can't be electively ignored.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/lawsuit-colorado-marijuana_n_6350162.html
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/09/forgetting-federalism-oklahoma-and-nebra
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/sheriffs-from-three-states-sue-colorado-over-marijuana/24385401/

Putin is in deep with the ME after this Iran deal.
Agreement to help Saudi build ten nuclear reactors
Agreement to Egypt build one nuclear reactor in Cairo
Agreement (in the works) to build one nuclear reactor in Jordan

All was waiting on the outcome of this deal.

BeAfraid wrote:

Majoritarian, First-Past-the-Post electoral Systems always produce two parties, except in the case of a strongly unified regional and/or ethnic demographic in the country.

Duverger himself said that his "law" was not absolute, and there are plenty of counterexamples to inform arguments against it.

BeAfraid wrote:

The Outcome of this next Presidential Election will basically determine if the GOP lives as a viable national party...

No it won't. The Presidential election isn't that important. The GOP will survive regardless of how the Presidential election turns out.

No it won't. The Presidential election isn't that important. The GOP will survive regardless of how the Presidential election turns out.

Further, there will always be a conservative party. It may not be the GOP. But there will always be a conservative party.

 whembly wrote:

Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land.

No, it isn't. It is just what the Supreme Court said, that doesn't make it "the law of the land".

 whembly wrote:

Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.

There is no Federal law which requires cities to report illegal immigrants.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle

It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.

Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.

Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.

Eh? GOP Candidates wanting to kill who and why?

Me.

A repeal of the ACA would kill me.

I would not be able to get insurance, would not be able to get the medication I need for the problems I have with my liver, and would die. Almost happened already with insurance.

Given that I am not the only one in this situation, the GOP's obsession with repealing the ACA is literally a desire to kill people, due to the provisions that prevent insurance discrimination.

MB