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.
2016/01/14 01:28:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: The "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 1 of the US constitution does not refer to people with birthright citizenship, that would literally be impossible. Birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, did not exist until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1866. There is no way that the founders believed that being born in the US granted a person US citizenship in 1789. The location of Cruz's place of birth is irrelevant, all that matters is the citizenship of his parents.
Natural born citizenship was was based on unambiguous common law and the idea of birthright citizenship was indeed a thing in 1789. It's also why the Clause 5 makes mention of people who are "Citizen[s] of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," because they recognized that no person could be a natural born citizen from a country that had not yet been established.
Is Ted Cruz eligible? Yes, kinda, it's actually not 100% clear. But make no mistake, within the framework of constitutional law, his place of birth is most definitely relevant.
Also, It's Article II that has the "natural born citizen" clause for qualifications of the office of the Presidency, not Article I (that article establishes the legislative branch).
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/01/14 01:52:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
When are the presidential candidates set for the election?
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2016/01/14 02:05:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
2016/01/14 02:31:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
Name any other candidate since Andrew Jackson that routinely got in fistfights with aliens. None besides the only man to free Valverde multiple times. Add the Italian Stallion as VP and JCVD as Sec of State, nobody would ever feth with America.
I'll even let Seagall be Fitness Czar, as he does it so well.
I'm actually pretty serious about the first comment. I would vote the gak out of that ticket.
2016/01/14 03:35:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
Name any other candidate since Andrew Jackson that routinely got in fistfights with aliens. None besides the only man to free Valverde multiple times. Add the Italian Stallion as VP and JCVD as Sec of State, nobody would ever feth with America.
I'll even let Seagall be Fitness Czar, as he does it so well.
I'm actually pretty serious about the first comment. I would vote the gak out of that ticket.
No, Segall has to be the White House chef.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/01/14 04:42:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Eldarain wrote: When are the presidential candidates set for the election?
You're probably not going to believe this, but the election isn't until November 4th of this year. All this nonsense is just to pick which candidate is going to be the pick for which party.
There isn't an established cutoff date for when each party picks their candidates, but there are a series of state-specific events that generally serve to start to winnow the field. The Iowa Caucus is first, and that's Feb 1st. A few losers will drop out at that point (fundraising will dry up). The next one is the New Hampshire primary, which is the... second tuesday in March? I want to say. Some more will be culled here - and so on, and so forth. Those are the big 2 though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/14 04:45:21
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
2016/01/14 04:48:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
March 1st is the "Super Tuesday" where about half of all delegates choose their candidate. It's also called the "SEC Primary" because many of the college football teams in the SEC are in this batch.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/14 05:19:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is not, Cruz getting a loan on behalf of his campaign.
This is a loan that he collateralized his personal investments for a loan and *then* loaned it again to his campaign.
The difference is that had he lost, he'd still be in debt and have to pay it off himself rather than his campaign asking for donation to pay off that debt. (although, I guess you 'could' ask for donations to pay that off *shrugs*)
They've asked the FEC for clarification and will amend their filing if necessary.
This is opposition research stuff and someone sat on it until the day before the last GOP debate before IA primary.
If you're outraged about this... just look at the Clinton Foundation, who's been amending their disclosure papers numerous times.
Of course Rubio/Trump will bring this up tonight.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/14 21:13:51
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/14 20:26:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Republicans own the Bible, in case you weren't up to speed.
Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, the GOP lawmaker who famously upset former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 Republican primary, informed the world of his party's proprietary rights Monday while speaking with radio host Sandy Rios on her show, American Family Radio.
Brat was particularly incensed at President Barack Obama referring to the Bible in his partisan comments and criticism of the Republicans.
"He's using the Christian tradition and trying to bring about compassion by bonking Republicans over the head with the Bible," Brat said. "It's almost a comedy routine on what compassion and love is. He's mocking his enemies in order to compel a larger federal state using the tradition of love.
"Our side, the conservative side, needs to re-educate its people that we own the entire tradition. If you lose the moral argument, you lose the policy argument every time, so we need to reclaim the moral argument, where we're so strong."
Specifically, in November, Obama said, "Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," when criticizing the GOP for their unwelcoming stance toward Syrian refugees.
His comments have been interpreted by some as a reference to James 1:27 in the Bible, which reads: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
The parallel was a subtle jab at a party that has become increasingly evangelical, touting fundamentalist Christianity as the basis for much of their ideology, from women's reproductive rights to Social Security.
The implication behind Rep. Brat's words (what a wonderful name, btw) that Obama is still not a Christian, and shouldn't be using "the Christian tradition" are ridiculous and infuriating.
2016/01/14 20:46:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: The "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 1 of the US constitution does not refer to people with birthright citizenship, that would literally be impossible. Birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, did not exist until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1866. There is no way that the founders believed that being born in the US granted a person US citizenship in 1789. The location of Cruz's place of birth is irrelevant, all that matters is the citizenship of his parents.
Natural born citizenship was was based on unambiguous common law and the idea of birthright citizenship was indeed a thing in 1789. It's also why the Clause 5 makes mention of people who are "Citizen[s] of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," because they recognized that no person could be a natural born citizen from a country that had not yet been established.
Is Ted Cruz eligible? Yes, kinda, it's actually not 100% clear. But make no mistake, within the framework of constitutional law, his place of birth is most definitely relevant.
Also, It's Article II that has the "natural born citizen" clause for qualifications of the office of the Presidency, not Article I (that article establishes the legislative branch).
My bad on the Article typo, it's Article II Section 1, I got those transposed.
The concept of birthright citizenship was known in 1789 but there was no federal law that actually granted birthright citizenship until 1866, that's why it's in the 14th amendment. People born in the US may have been socially accepted as being American but there was no law that established such a thing until the 14th amendment. If it was already true then it wouldn't need to be in the amendment.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/01/14 21:17:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: The concept of birthright citizenship was known in 1789 but there was no federal law that actually granted birthright citizenship until 1866, that's why it's in the 14th amendment. People born in the US may have been socially accepted as being American but there was no law that established such a thing until the 14th amendment. If it was already true then it wouldn't need to be in the amendment.
The Citizenship Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment to reverse the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that said peoples of African decent are not citizens even though they were born in the Untied States because they were specifically excluded in the Constitution. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does not use the term "natural-born citizen" in any of its text; it remains undefined by the Constitution which is why this is still an issue.
That's why scholars look to common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution because it's where the concept of birthright citizenship stems. The Framers clearly intended the office of the President to have more stringent citizenship standards, because when defining eligibility for Congress, no natural-born citizen clause is present. Regardless, the matter has not been settled and there are valid opinions on both sides of the debate (and to be clear, I'm firmly on the side that Ted Cruz should qualify as being a 'natural-born citizen' and therefore eligible for the office of the Presidency).
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/01/14 21:35:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
When I first heard the phrase "natural-born citizen", I thought it mean anyone born via caesarean section were ineligible. I was like, "How would they know?"
2016/01/14 21:39:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: When I first heard the phrase "natural-born citizen", I thought it mean anyone born via caesarean section were ineligible. I was like, "How would they know?"
They'll be able to tell when Birnam Wood marches.
2016/01/14 23:26:22
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
"Our side, the conservative side, needs to re-educate its people that we own the entire tradition. If you lose the moral argument, you lose the policy argument every time, so we need to reclaim the moral argument, where we're so strong."
This is pretty damn delicious to me right here... I mean, last I checked, it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs (adultery), affairs with people of the same sex (homosexuality, bad!) and other similar things.
Of course, I think they've pretty fairly lost the moral argument a long time ago, and really, I don't think it's because they are so often caught with their pants down, it's more that other educated people are pointing out things in the "good book" that are seriously wrong/flawed, and pointing to the idiocy of many policies that are pushed for or defended.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/14 23:26:39
2016/01/14 23:56:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/01/15 00:01:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
While true, my overall point is that you find a lot more of the "family values" type republicans in the news for that kind of gak, and the D side doesn't really seem to do "wholesome family values" as major talking points, though it certainly may come up in talking.
While not a politician, I'm sure many people can recall the vehemently anti-gay pastor from Alabama, who was caught having an affair with a guy.
2016/01/15 00:03:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm not sure it's actually more common, but it's probably more reported, because the irony of stuff like that is fun to report on. Schadenfreude, and what have you.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/01/15 00:06:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure it's actually more common, but it's probably more reported, because the irony of stuff like that is fun to report on. Schadenfreude, and what have you.
Well, it's also more relevant when you have someone running on "traditional family values" who gets caught with their pants down than someone just running on policies and leaving their private life in private.
Basically a don't hold yourself up as representing some ideal unless you're actually living up to it, kinda thing.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/01/15 00:10:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
2016/01/15 00:19:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
No, but I did see Pres Clinton lie about it. Clearly he was not proud enough of his lack of 'family values' that he owned up to them. Wether or not he ran on them, he clearly wasn't happy getting caught.
I get that the Rs who run on family values and then get busted doing crap like this are hypocrites, trust me I get it. But it also tends to end their careers.
And I still dispute the comment I replied to "it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs". The news folks may make a bigger issue when an R does it, but guys like Edwards and Weiner sure caught their time in the lime light.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/01/15 00:27:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is not, Cruz getting a loan on behalf of his campaign.
This is a loan that he collateralized his personal investments for a loan and *then* loaned it again to his campaign.
The difference is that had he lost, he'd still be in debt and have to pay it off himself rather than his campaign asking for donation to pay off that debt. (although, I guess you 'could' ask for donations to pay that off *shrugs*)
They've asked the FEC for clarification and will amend their filing if necessary.
This is opposition research stuff and someone sat on it until the day before the last GOP debate before IA primary.
If you're outraged about this... just look at the Clinton Foundation, who's been amending their disclosure papers numerous times.
Of course Rubio/Trump will bring this up tonight.
Honestly, I also feel this is a non-issue. Yes, he missed reporting the loans on a FEC filing. But they were still reported elsewhere, so it's not like it was a secret or anything even approaching intentional.
But, here is what does bug me, as it really does just go to show the extent of money in politics. First, "forgetting" to report half a million dollars (how much money are we talking about to begin with if it's easy enough to forget half a million)? Second, he's already paid off the half million dollars? Yep, just one more proof that politicians know nothing anymore about how the average American lives day to day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/15 00:28:19
"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
2016/01/15 00:34:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
No, but I did see Pres Clinton lie about it. Clearly he was not proud enough of his lack of 'family values' that he owned up to them. Wether or not he ran on them, he clearly wasn't happy getting caught.
I get that the Rs who run on family values and then get busted doing crap like this are hypocrites, trust me I get it. But it also tends to end their careers.
And I still dispute the comment I replied to "it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs". The news folks may make a bigger issue when an R does it, but guys like Edwards and Weiner sure caught their time in the lime light.
do you have any numbers for those caught in affairs? is the news just reporting on the R's more, or are the R's just getting caught more? the number of R's getting busted in same sex affairs is become so routine, it's becoming a cliche.
No one is happy getting caught cheating, and they all deny it until it is shown to be demonstrably true, then they'll admit it and ask for forgiveness.
2016/01/15 03:14:01
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I’ve made a lot of noise for a long time about the intellectual collapse of the Republican party. For a while I thought Trump was strong evidence of that, but the more I think about that, well there’s no shortage of demagogues and hateful twits doing really well during times of turmoil and economic distress.
Really, the best evidence of woeful state of Republican politics lies with the mainstream of the party, and especially with guys like Paul Ryan, who are seen as serious, ‘wonkish’, policy kinds of people. They hold this reputation within their party, despite everything they say being utterly vacuous.
There was a great example the other day, when Ryan was commenting on the economic recovery, he was quick to say that it had nothing to do with anything Obama did. That’s fine, really, politicians can’t be expected to give credit to their opposition, and in this case it’s even fairly true. Presidents have little impact on economies outside of long term, structural things that won’t really show up five year results. But Ryan didn’t stop there, instead he credited the recovery to the policies of the Federal Reserve. The policies, that is, of Quantitative Easing, keeping interests at zero or near zero. Policies that Paul Ryan denounced, believing they were sure to lead to high inflation and a debasing of the dollar.
But now they’re policies he credits with the economic improvement. This isn’t to say Paul Ryan has changed his mind, admitted he’s learnt something and improved his understanding of economics. No, he’s just thrown that new statement out there, with no effort to explain why it’s in complete contrast to what claimed before. When it was convenient to make stupid noises about Fed policy leading to the inflation of doom he said that, and now that the need of the day is to find something other than Obama to give credit to for the economy, he gives it to those same policies he used to claim to hate. And all the while he makes no effort to explain how or why he’s swapped 180’ on his view of monetary policy.
Whether he doesn’t remember that he was supposed to hate QE and 0% rates, or whether he remembers and just doesn’t care because honesty is for other people, I don’t know. I do know that Ryan is meant to be the smart end of the Republican party, and that should be more damning than Trump’s continued support.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/01/15 03:55:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
