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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

FYI: unless you guys lives in Germany for 8 years years your daughter does not have German citizenship AFAIK. Citizenship laws were updated in 200(?)

She was born in 2009... at least then, at the office where we got her birth certificate, they told us that that was all she needed to claim citizenship. That said, it could very well have changed at some point after she was born.

Yeah, unless there is something specific in the force agreement between the US and Germany she only has German citizenship is either one of you lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years unless one of you had dual citizenship. There may be something in the agreement, but I would be honesty surprised if the agreement made it easier for another nations military to have German children.

Heck, I have German citizenship and even for me it's a pain in the rear to get a German passport for my daughter

Edit: https://de.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/dual-nationality/

 d-usa wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

FYI: unless you guys lives in Germany for 8 years years your daughter does not have German citizenship AFAIK. Citizenship laws were updated in 200(?)

She was born in 2009... at least then, at the office where we got her birth certificate, they told us that that was all she needed to claim citizenship. That said, it could very well have changed at some point after she was born.

Yeah, unless there is something specific in the force agreement between the US and Germany she only has German citizenship is either one of you lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years unless one of you had dual citizenship. There may be something in the agreement, but I would be honesty surprised if the agreement made it easier for another nations military to have German children.

Heck, I have German citizenship and even for me it's a pain in the rear to get a German passport for my daughter

Lol, that I don't doubt, but what I'm saying is that the birth certificate office I was referring to, was the German one in downtown Wiesbaden. Though I would imagine that getting into university or claiming any kind of benefits of being German would be a royal pain for her, unless she did decide to stay there forever.

I had a random thought today, did Ted Cruz ever register for the draft when he turned 18?

he only recently turned in his canadian passport after all.

Separate political rights for some citizens doesn't strike me as a good idea. If someone's popular enough to get enough votes to be elected president, why should that person not be allowed to be president?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Separate political rights for some citizens doesn't strike me as a good idea. If someone's popular enough to get enough votes to be elected president, why should that person not be allowed to be president?

And we'd finally have President Schwarzenegger in the world, brining about the prophecy of Demolition Man!

Seaward wrote:
The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.

He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.

No disagreement there. My point was that Clinton didn’t manage a solid win, as a strong performing candidate should be expected to. Really any strong performing candidate should be expected to deliver a strong win over a guy who’s only really known because he’s politics are a long way from the political centre.

Can anyone imagine Obama struggling over the line against Sanders?

She’ll win the nomination, and probably go on to win to general, because holy crap look at what’s out there. But if Obama was running against Sanders and then Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Whoever, we’d already be talking about 2020.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.

Wha? He scored a narrow loss, effectively a tie, in one of the states most favourable states for him relative to Clinton. That’s quite an achievement for a left wing candidate going up against a powerful establishment figure, and it shows there is still a place for genuinely left wing policy in US political discourse, but to try and turn that in to a narrative about going on to win? That’s make no sense.

“Look, we only just lost in one of the state’s best suited to us! Let’s take that all the way to Washington!”

I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

Sure Sebs, sure. Not once has a person involved in the presidential race used early momentum to push them to victory.

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

Not when you actually know what a democratic socialist is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

Not when you actually know what a democratic socialist is.

A) "socialism" still has that "evil" connotation here in the US... ignore that at your peril.
B) this is the guy who decried about the number of deodorants one could buy...

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

Not when you actually know what a democratic socialist is.

A) "socialism" still has that "evil" connotation here in the US... ignore that at your peril.

I believe you are ignoring what a "democratic socialist" is at your peril.

 whembly wrote:
B) this is the guy who decried about the number of deodorants one could buy...

And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
B) this is the guy who decried about the number of deodorants one could buy...

And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.

It's a false premise as you're ignoring the amount of jobs across multi-dicipline that provides those "9999999999999 different brands".

No force on earth comes close to driving down poverty than free markets and capitalism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
B) this is the guy who decried about the number of deodorants one could buy...

And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.

Errm, not really.

If that happened you'd just see all but one of the deodorant companies stop selling deodorant, or you'd have a different company selling each type.

 sebster wrote:

Seaward wrote:
The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.

He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.

No disagreement there. My point was that Clinton didn’t manage a solid win, as a strong performing candidate should be expected to. Really any strong performing candidate should be expected to deliver a strong win over a guy who’s only really known because he’s politics are a long way from the political centre.

Can anyone imagine Obama struggling over the line against Sanders?

She’ll win the nomination, and probably go on to win to general, because holy crap look at what’s out there. But if Obama was running against Sanders and then Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Whoever, we’d already be talking about 2020.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.

Wha? He scored a narrow loss, effectively a tie, in one of the states most favourable states for him relative to Clinton. That’s quite an achievement for a left wing candidate going up against a powerful establishment figure, and it shows there is still a place for genuinely left wing policy in US political discourse, but to try and turn that in to a narrative about going on to win? That’s make no sense.

“Look, we only just lost in one of the state’s best suited to us! Let’s take that all the way to Washington!”

Agreed, Clinton didn't secure a solid enough lead to make it a win worth noting about.

Sanders on the other hand did exceed expectations by coming in a hair-splitting second.

Between the two, Sanders came out of this better than Clinton. He showed that there is a place for him and people who want what he sells.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

Not when you actually know what a democratic socialist is.

A) "socialism" still has that "evil" connotation here in the US... ignore that at your peril.

Right, to people that don't actually know better, but keep banging that drum.

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

You talking to me? My point was that Clinton had failed to come out clearly ahead of a socialist. Which probably says something about how little scare factor actual socialist politics has on the left*, but the bigger point is how meh Clinton continues to be.

That's maybe a product of having what is basically a fundamentally honest, and therefore very boring set of campaign promises. 'The reforms began during the Obama administration are good, progressive reforms and I'm looking to build on that with a range of new, practical goals' isn't quite the same attention grabber as Sanders' 'I want single payer and we'll have if you all just agree with me to ignore how politically and financially unachievable that is'.


*Which is interesting, considering how often it is used a scary word by the right, and how often mainstream leftwingers run away from things that might be called socialism.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Sure Sebs, sure. Not once has a person involved in the presidential race used early momentum to push them to victory.

You're not understanding. Momentum is hugely important. Had Sanders won by 0.2% instead of lost by that margin, then he could have claimed an underdog win and maybe built some momentum that might have meant something. Instead he lost by that margin. While a margin that fine doesn't affect delegates, it does affect the narrative. Instead of 'Sanders wins in upset' we get 'Sanders does surprisingly well but still loses in one of the states that suits him best'.

Trying to claim that second story as the kind of momentum that'll help build overcome the issues he has in most states past New Hampshire is very fanciful.

The tie that had caused Hilary to be given the Iowa Caucus by .2% margin (such a close race there, but more to come). Shows folks are not so afraid of some things anymore.

Heck, the US has used for years a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, and we still pretty much use a bunch of things since our tax dollars are used for the following 75 things you hardly think of, and many like using a bunch of "socialistic" things.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

It is a bit of a read, but the list may have some surprising answers. Reading challenge is laid before all.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...

You talking to me? My point was that Clinton had failed to come out clearly ahead of a socialist. Which probably says something about how little scare factor actual socialist politics has on the left*, but the bigger point is how meh Clinton continues to be.

That's maybe a product of having what is basically a fundamentally honest, and therefore very boring set of campaign promises. 'The reforms began during the Obama administration are good, progressive reforms and I'm looking to build on that with a range of new, practical goals' isn't quite the same attention grabber as Sanders' 'I want single payer and we'll have if you all just agree with me to ignore how politically and financially unachievable that is'.


*Which is interesting, considering how often it is used a scary word by the right, and how often mainstream leftwingers run away from things that might be called socialism.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Sure Sebs, sure. Not once has a person involved in the presidential race used early momentum to push them to victory.

You're not understanding. Momentum is hugely important. Had Sanders won by 0.2% instead of lost by that margin, then he could have claimed an underdog win and maybe built some momentum that might have meant something. Instead he lost by that margin. While a margin that fine doesn't affect delegates, it does affect the narrative. Instead of 'Sanders wins in upset' we get 'Sanders does surprisingly well but still loses in one of the states that suits him best'.

Trying to claim that second story as the kind of momentum that'll help build overcome the issues he has in most states past New Hampshire is very fanciful.

You're not understanding. The whole Sander's movement has been downplayed since the beginning by virtually everybody. Nobody thought he would ever do this well. Many people have been saying that he stands absolutely no chance and he will be destroyed.

He has just proven them very wrong. Saying "He may have barely lost, but he still lost" is not really an argument when the narrative that has been displayed by most of the media has been "he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell".

And let's not forget that with proportional delegates Hillary's "win" is really just a tie. They both got essentially the same number of votes for the nomination, and the difference is entirely a handful of (literal) coin flips which could have gone either way.

As far as him not doing well in anything past New Hampshire, an endorsement that was previously for Hillary just flipped sides to Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/lawyer-for-walter-scott-family-switches-sides-to-endorse-bernie-sanders/?_r=0

Sebster, I am not sure you know what you are talking about.

It's not going to matter anyway.


Michele Bachmann warns Obama will take over the United Nations — and then reveal he’s the Antichrist



Do Hilary or Saunders represent a plausible anti-christ figure in the way Obama does ?

Better do as there's a lot of failed Rep. political wannbes who are going to need them to be if the last batch are any indication.

 Peregrine wrote:
And let's not forget that with proportional delegates Hillary's "win" is really just a tie. They both got essentially the same number of votes for the nomination, and the difference is entirely a handful of (literal) coin flips which could have gone either way.

If you have a situation where there are that many coin flips, would it not make sense to just split them down the middle and decide the remainder with a coin flip, rather than leaving 6 different delegates up to chance?

Perhaps, but since when has our political sytem made sense?

Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.

 CptJake wrote:
Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.

I thought libertarians didn't like evangelicals.

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.

I thought libertarians didn't like evangelicals.

Cruz is running on being the Constitutional Guy though, that was a big part of Rand's message. He backed off the Libertarian stuff a bit, especially compared to his daddy.

Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.

It's fairly standard evangelical behavior really.... He ignores the parts of the constitution he doesn't like just as well as the parts of the bible he doesnt like.


And really, I'm just pointing out that a number of "Christians" ignore many parts of the bible here. I'm not really saying he's ignoring many of those same sections. AFAIK, he's only been married once

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.

What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?