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.

I probably have a pretty unpopular stance with Iran but after studying them a bit I would say of all the M.E. states they are the most stable and helpful as a potential ally. Given that for about a decade they have attempted to get snuggly with the US, with Bush Jr. outright denying them (usually without the public knowing), Obama (for better or worst) seems to be at least attempting to build some bridges over there.

Iraq I feel is going to disappear as a state sometime in the next 10 years. If ISIS isn't bombed to oblivion, the Shia majority will probably become part of Iran, the Kurds will do their own thing and ISIS will either exist or not with the Sunni majority.

So given US and Iran used to be super best frewnds forever, it seems logical to try it again. A few years ago Iran attempted to liberalize itself but after fears of an imminent US invasion (a real honest possibility at the time) the conservatives won out and that was that. All we need to do is support those people and Iran will change.

 CptJake wrote:

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?

WOW! Someone else who knows about Verona. He is using both it, and ex-Soviet Archives.

Plus, he has a HUGE number of retired Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s who were not the Evangelical, Born-Again types who proliferate the party now who talk about the war that took place within the Party over Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan's coddling of the Moral Majority (welcoming them into the GOP). Like Goldwater (And Dole, for that matter), they were not happen to see people who had no ability to govern taking over the GOP.

Most people do not understand the Totalitarian nature of the Evangelicals who have essentially taken the GOP Hostage by refusing any compromise on most issues (which is a refusal to govern - and an act of passive aggressive violence, provoking the opposition that the only way to make any progress is to resort to force), nor the insanity they represent.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

 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

You don't have access to Medicare or Medicade?
Have you considered the ACA is horrific and there are better systems out there (look North...)?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I probably have a pretty unpopular stance with Iran but after studying them a bit I would say of all the M.E. states they are the most stable and helpful as a potential ally. Given that for about a decade they have attempted to get snuggly with the US, with Bush Jr. outright denying them (usually without the public knowing), Obama (for better or worst) seems to be at least attempting to build some bridges over there.

Iraq I feel is going to disappear as a state sometime in the next 10 years. If ISIS isn't bombed to oblivion, the Shia majority will probably become part of Iran, the Kurds will do their own thing and ISIS will either exist or not with the Sunni majority.

So given US and Iran used to be super best frewnds forever, it seems logical to try it again. A few years ago Iran attempted to liberalize itself but after fears of an imminent US invasion (a real honest possibility at the time) the conservatives won out and that was that. All we need to do is support those people and Iran will change.

I have a lot of contact with Persians (seeing as my niece is half Persian).

My brother-in-law is not the most politically astute (because becoming so is a danger to his livelihood), but many of his relatives are more outspoken.

A great deal of Iran is incredibly Liberal, and well educated, but they have the problem of the state being essentially captured by what they call "The Religious Mafia."

And listening to them talk about the Revolution in 78/79 is enlightening. The Revolutionaries basically pulled a fake-out on what they promised vs what was delivered.

And, yes, they have been trying to Liberalize the government to get away from "The Religious Mafia" for some time, but it is essentially impossible for the near future.

MB

The Movement Republicans who became the Neocons dominate conservative conversation in the media. FOxnews is straight up owned by and staffed by neocons. Most conservatives I know claim to be anti-neocon but if you listen to what they say its dyed in the wool neocon rhetoric and its because of Foxnews being so popular. I don't even know where you would find a conservative media outlet at this point.

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

You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.

I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:

• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition

While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.

But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.

In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.

Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).

Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.

And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.



MB

Interesting that a guy who bases his position on "The ACA keeps me alive, if you don't like the ACA you are literally trying to kill me" wants to discuss sound moral and ethical foundations.

BeAfraid wrote:

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

You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.

I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:

• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition

While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.

But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.

In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.

Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).

Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.

And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.



MB

I want to post but no, not worth it.
Ok a little. You neither understand the law, or the federal system.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

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

You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.

I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:

• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition

While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.

But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.

In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.

Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).

Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.

And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.



MB

Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.

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.

That will be interesting to read. He needs to also do chapters on the Neo-cons who came up with perpetual wars, and spread the fear mongering which to my mind makes lie to "Home of the Brave" and the over reach of the Police state we have seen grow as civil liberties got curtailed some, which makes mockery of "Land of the Free" (includes that we have the most people locked up in prisons due to harmless individuals caught up in the "war on drugs" as well as the privately owned prisons making deals with judges to fill them up on account they need bodies to make bank.,

Prestor Jon wrote:

Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.

That's not a law, it is a policy.

A policy that was mandatory a couple years ago

 Jihadin wrote:
A policy that was mandatory a couple years ago

Not at all. Sub-Federal organizations could, and can, freely bow out.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.

Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
A policy that was mandatory a couple years ago

Not at all. Sub-Federal organizations could, and can, freely bow out.

Woops
Sorry should have clarify more
Federal Detainer Order

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.

Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.

Thank you for getting to that before I could. So what discretion is granted to the states in respect of immigration?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep

So, then, NOT the "Constitution" as others were arguing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

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

You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.

I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:

• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition

While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.

But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.

In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.

Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).

Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.

And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.



MB

Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with there point that the Constitution got those issues wrong FIRST, before they were corrected.

i.e. It is irellevant that the Constitution was changed to the point that it got these issues WRONG before changing them.

SO. . . PRIOR to the Slavery being outlawed in the Constitution (as early as 1775, in fact, in Vermont, where Slavery was first outlawed), individual states (Northern) outlawed the institution of Slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

And PRIOR to Alcohol Prohibition being repealed, Individual States simply stopped enforcing the laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Economic urgency played no small part in accelerating the advocacy for repeal. The number of conservatives who pushed for prohibition in the beginning decreased. Many farmers who fought for prohibition now fought for repeal because of the negative effects it had on the agriculture business.[63] Prior to the 1920 implementation of the Volstead Act, approximately 14% of federal, state, and local tax revenues were derived from alcohol commerce. When the Great Depression hit and tax revenues plunged, the governments needed this revenue stream.[64] Millions could be made by taxing beer. There was controversy on whether the repeal should be a state or nationwide decision.[63] On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act, known as the Cullen–Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of 3.2% beer (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The Volstead Act previously defined an intoxicating beverage as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[9] Upon signing the Cullen–Harrison Act, Roosevelt made his famous remark: "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[65]

So, that local governments are taking the lead in an unjust Federal Policy/Law in establishing Sanctuary cities has its precedents in PRIOR ACTS of this same nature.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

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.

That will be interesting to read. He needs to also do chapters on the Neo-cons who came up with perpetual wars, and spread the fear mongering which to my mind makes lie to "Home of the Brave" and the over reach of the Police state we have seen grow as civil liberties got curtailed some, which makes mockery of "Land of the Free" (includes that we have the most people locked up in prisons due to harmless individuals caught up in the "war on drugs" as well as the privately owned prisons making deals with judges to fill them up on account they need bodies to make bank.,

HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1130035859

95% with bernie, despite the fact that I was not socialist at all with the economy (mostly choosing relatively moderate answers).
A remarkably large drop to 77% with Hillary, Martin O'Malley at 69% and Chris Christie at 66%.
Depressingly (at least for me) is that Pataki isn't even on the list. Which is sad, because I've been rooting for him to win the R primaries.

I'm 95% the Cruz.

Go figure...

Then 93% to Rubio.

 Bullockist wrote:
HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p

I think it's too early for an accurate match, but when I did it last week it placed me dead center on the grid but towards libertarian.

Thanks for that tip dreadclaw, I didn't notice the political spectrum result. According to us politics I am a centrist left winger (described as "extremely left wing") . Interesting. Hillary is apparently my 2nd choice. Bernie Sanders 97% Hillary at 84%

I've wanted to know for a while how does GoP translate into republican?

 Bullockist wrote:
I've wanted to know for a while how does GoP translate into republican?

The nickname for the Republican Party is "Grand Old Party".

It's a weird nickname, imo. Especially since the democratic party is older. Maybe because it's filled with rich, old people.

@BeAfraid: Seems I am not the only one who slid over when my original party politics went too far over to one, and I saw that we need a change to the present failed trickle down economics of the GoP and the need for a modern "New Deal" and other things so I am siding with Bernie, folks may be seeing Hilary as saying what may get her elected.

And with Trump leading the pack, well that is a train wreck the news likes to play with, Not report actual issues, or real news, just foolishness from Trump and celebrity misbehavior to deflect and mis-direct from reality the majority of News watchers who watch the corporate BS factories.

so to summarise :

Trump tweets the following





Which features a stock photo of people in military garb.

Who it turns out are WW II re-enactors dressed as SS


... For some the image of nazi soldiers walking towards the White House might be .... I dunno .... something you wouldn't want to suggest happening under ones leadership tenure.

and yet he's now leading the polls of the Republican Candidates

whilst other Republicans are suggesting he is in fact some form of Democrat ploy to hurt the Republicans election chances.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/florida-republican-donald-trump-is-a-democratic-plot-to-make-gop-look-stupid/



You really are a strange bunch of people.

One might think that putting your own face on the flag might be some violation of the flag code.

You're kidding about the SS thing right?

http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/marching-soldiers-1899529?st=6444c2d

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/donald-trump-again-caught-up-in-twitter-controversy/6620632

One might think that putting your own face on the flag might be some violation of the flag code.

is it ?

TBF I always understood it wasn't supposed to be used for advertising either but I guess that's something of a broad description possibly.