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.
2015/08/26 16:00:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well you're not completely wrong. I don't think i will vote Republican in 2016. In 2008, I was 18, and I honestly had never gone out into the real world (sheltered impetulant children aren't always Dems ). I don't think I really started to decide what it was I really believed in till I graduated college four years ago, and even then, it's only been the past 2-3 years where I've really decided I'm just not a Republican. *shurgs* I'm just not.
1) why the feth you reading Breibart? That need to change that fething website name.
Because Breitbart.com is a reliable source for extreme, conservative opinions; that's the basis of the Breitbart brand. I'm not sure why you believe the website should change its name, as you regularly link to websites with names that brand them as extremely conservative, indeed you did so by linking to a Fox Youtube channel.
Ever since Andrew Breibart passed away... that site has gone to the deep end like infowars imo. I mean... I find myself even saying "Yo... I can't even" after reading some of their gak.
That video is the same as the one posted by the Breitbart reporter, and does not feature Trump stating that Ramos was being removed for "speaking out of turn" as you claimed. Trump did state that Ramos was not called on to ask a question, and subsequently mocked him for being a Univision journalist, in keeping with his position on immigration.
To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh
I can't find any evidence of that happening.
It's out there... towards the end of the conference he did indeed let Jorge back in and answered his questions.
I say this as a Trump-hater... Trump was "in the right" on how he handled Jorge. He handled it in a way that even *I* could respect.
But, then... he goes back on twittah and starts up a catfight with Megyn Kelly again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/26 21:27:45
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/26 23:09:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Doesn't much matter. Trump just lost the Latino vote of Florida, which will cost him the nomination, if he ever had it with the Cuban vote in Florida, who are traditionally Conservative voters, what with Rubio being on the ticket and a local there.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Overall? It is tragic to see that *this* is the state of American politics.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/08/27 01:21:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That is, at this point, a manufactured scandal, since absolutely nothing HRC did, pertaining to the email, was illegal at the time. Was it the best course of action? No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
Psienesis wrote: That is, at this point, a manufactured scandal, since absolutely nothing HRC did, pertaining to the email, was illegal at the time. Was it the best course of action? No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/08/27 02:02:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/27 02:10:34
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
2015/08/27 02:14:14
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Tangentially...
We can keep the birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th amendment. But why do we have to accept that the entire illegal alien family MUST be able to stay in the states? Deport them all... When the child becomes of age, can come back to the states.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/27 02:18:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Psienesis wrote: No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever. It's sad, but eh, so was only a single season of Firefly. That's life.
whembly wrote: We can keep the birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th amendment.
It's interesting people are so willing to screw with the 14th amendment, but the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, handed from from on high.
Personally I'd love to see the 2nd amendment tightened up a bit. However, I can't imagine any political candidate of either party seriously saying such a thing.
edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to turn this into a guns argument, debate, or discussion: I think we've already tried Motyak's patience enough in the last 4 or 5 pages. I'm simply trying to point out how weird it is that some parts of the Constitution are more sacred than others.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 02:25:50
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
2015/08/27 02:24:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever.
However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
2015/08/27 02:25:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: [However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
God no. One blue dress was enough for a lifetime, I think.
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
2015/08/27 03:48:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Not really. They're were at least here legally to begin with. And I think its ok if that is the case. But you shouldn't be able to sneak into the country illegally, have a baby, and then get a free pass because of it. Hence my idea to change the 14th to require the parents of a baby born here to be legal residents or citizens themselves to grant citizenship to the baby.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Not really. They're were at least here legally to begin with. And I think its ok if that is the case. But you shouldn't be able to sneak into the country illegally, have a baby, and then get a free pass because of it. Hence my idea to change the 14th to require the parents of a baby born here to be legal residents or citizens themselves to grant citizenship to the baby.
That would effectively take a Constitutional amendment in order to survive future court challenges.
It would be easier to implement policies to discourage folks attempts to illegally immigrate, (ie, E-Verify, drop MOABs on bad employers, roll-back anchor baby policies, etc...)
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever.
However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
The "Clinton magical force field" *is* a combination of "It's her time", "her gender", "being a Clinton", "low information voters", etc..
That's what makes them survive things that would normally destroy other politicians.
IMO, the only way HRC is held accountable for this is if the Intelligence Community (IC) take her to tasks for this. Keep in mind, the States Dept does NOT have the right to declassify those informations.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 13:17:40
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/27 19:04:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
The amount of surprise that I am feeling is so tremendous, words to not begin to describe..... Next you'll tell me the sky is blue and that there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn (or was that one sold and we're now trying to buy the one in Miami?)
2015/08/27 21:36:26
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/08/27 21:50:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 21:56:16
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/27 21:59:14
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Lots of political junkies are "low information voters". The word "junkie" generally refers to a person who behaves in a way that information available to him indicates he shouldn't.
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?
Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
So what does letting Fox News run the Republican debate resemble?
I get that you're anti-abortion. That's fine. That's your held beliefs.
But you really need to understand that maybe, just maybe, in this case the smoke? It's not because there's a fire coming from inside of Planned Parenthood. It's because some nutbag anti-abortion advocate threw a Molotov at the brick facade outside.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 22:10:48
2015/08/27 22:06:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
As a high jnformation voter I am sure that you are aware that the group now admits that the unedited videos were in fact edited, but that they only cut out non-important parts like bathroom breaks.
I am also sure that a group caught lying twice in a week will continue to have your blind support.
To summarize:
"This is an aborted fetus!" "That is my stillborn child." "We mean it is an example of what an aborted fetus looks like..."
"This is unedited!" "It's edited..." "We meant that nothing important was edited..."
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?
Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.
It's like listening to a Dallas Cowboys fan who keeps on sharing every article and repeating every blog post and who 'knows' that this is the year that they are going to the Super Bowl.
You might be a sports junkie, but I wouldn't call you "high information" sports fan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 22:17:52
). I don't think I really started to decide what it was I really believed in till I graduated college four years ago, and even then, it's only been the past 2-3 years where I've really decided I'm just not a Republican. *shurgs* I'm just not.
