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.
2016/02/03 15:48:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
"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
2016/02/03 15:57:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
I'm asking you what makes you say that?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 16:22:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sat what you like about the Bush family --- and I think most people have the years so let's not get too bogged down here with the "greatest hits" or whatever -- but they've normally been effective campaigners one way or another when they've ran. Bush Sr. 2nd term aside perhaps.
I think most people thought he'd do better than he has been doing.
Almost feel sorry for the guy.
.. almost
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/02/03 16:37:27
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yeah, the Jeb Bush campaign has been pretty dismal, but personally I am taking tons of joy in Martin O'Malley's crash and burn.
He was the big fish in a small pond when he was the Democratic mayor of a heavily Democratic city, then the governor of a mostly(at the time) Democratic state. Now that he's out amongst the other big fish where elections are fierce competitions and not coronation parties, he's floundering and its awesome to watch. I loved Larry Hogan destroying O'Malleys chosen successor in the Maryland Governor's elections. The Democrats took an ass whooping nationwide, but losing Maryland to a Republican governor by such a large margin was quite a shock.
He'll probably be end up being Hillary's Vice President though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 16:37:49
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
2016/02/03 16:37:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
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."
2016/02/03 16:41:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 16:52:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
See above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 16:52:42
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."
2016/02/03 16:55:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
See above.
So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
This is called "deflection".
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 16:57:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
See above.
So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
This is called "deflection".
Both sides do that.
(Am I doing this right?)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 16:57:57
2016/02/03 16:59:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
If the shoe fits...
This is called "deflection".
Deflecting what, exactly? I made no claim about whether or not Cruz is as constitutional as he says he is. I know I've said this to you many, many times before: stop making up arguments.
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."
2016/02/03 17:01:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
If the shoe fits...
This is called "deflection".
Deflecting what, exactly? I made no claim about whether or not Cruz is as constitutional as he says he is. I know I've said this to you many, many times before: stop making up arguments.
How 'bout this... let Tannhauser42 speak for himself.
Cool?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 17:04:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: How 'bout this... let Tannhauser42 speak for himself.
Cool?
So is this your admission that you're once again making up an argument out of thin air?
Since we're on the subject, how do you feel about this?
Spoiler:
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."
2016/02/03 17:11:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks. Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
"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
2016/02/03 17:23:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks.
Sorry... blame scooty.
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 17:41:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks. Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
To be fair I don't think most Republicans want it either. Problem with politics, especially popular politics, is that they often hinge on no one thinking anything through and just saying whatever will get votes and then everyone listening saying they agree while also not thinking anything through. Saying "we are a Christian nation and our laws should be Christian laws" sounds really nice on the face of it to a typical Christian. But then I just pull up these here wikilinkythings and maybe someone might get the idea that having enshrined religion as law and/or deeply regulated by the government is a really stupid idea that historically has a pretty high disaster rate.
Of course the immediate response to all that it "Catholics aren't real Christians and feth the Arabs and the Chinese!" (no seriously that is the response I've gotten when trying to explain this to people I know).
Was listening to NPR yesterday and during the time I was in the car, they kept talking about Clinton and Iowa.
They just couldn't get over the fact that more people, especially women, were not siding with Hillary during the caucuses so they could be a part of this historical occasion.
Never mind if a woman disagrees with her or don't approve of her, they should just jump on the band wagon, because history.
I turned off the radio after that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 18:58:21
I'm back!
2016/02/03 18:58:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
I think d-usa just earned an A+.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/02/03 19:00:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board Of Election Finds
"Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary."
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.
"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."
Both objections, which on their face seemed to carry little weight, had forced lawyers for Cruz to formally respond and offer appropriate counterarguments.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning of the Constitution.
The lawyers also pointed to the valid candidacies of two former Republican hopefuls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Michigan Gov. George Romney, as examples of presidential runs that received the blessing of Congress, courts and other means to proceed, despite the fact that both men were born abroad and raised eligibility questions.
These and other sources of authority, the lawyers said, "all command the same conclusion" that Cruz complies with the "natural born" requirement.
Agenda minutes for the Illinois Board of Elections -- which include its determinations in the two challenges to Cruz's eligibility plus a separate one Graham filed against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- can be found here.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Joyce -- who is listed as an attorney in Illinois but doesn't actively practice law -- told The Huffington Post he's not planning an appeal of the board's determination due to lack of resources. He said, however, that he hopes "somebody else takes up the cause" against Cruz.
A deafening birther debate over whether Cruz satisfied the constitutional standard for the presidency emerged in the months leading up to Monday's Iowa caucus -- fueled in large part by attacks from fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump, who wouldn't let up mere days before voting began.
As if addressing the magnate directly, the Illinois Board of Elections was conclusive in its findings: "Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary."
But a New Hampshire ballot commission in January was a little more tentative.
In rejecting a similar challenge to Cruz's eligibility to appear on the ballot for the state primary, which is scheduled for next week, the commission recognized that a suitable court should settle the matter -- "so that all election officials and the American people know once and for all the definition of 'natural born citizen.'"
That, the commission said, "would be helpful in avoiding uncertainty."
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
I think d-usa just earned an A+.
those don't go together...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:01:13
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 19:03:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Thank you for proving my original point. Also, would you be comfortable with Keith Ellison or André Carson saying they're "Muslim first, American second..." or Dianne Feinstein or Barbra Boxer saying they're "Jewish first, American second...?"
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
His obsession with "religious liberty."
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
It's something he was accused of by his opponents, primarily evangelicals like Ted Cruz. Of course, you seem to be forgetting that Kennedy, in one of his most famous speeches, had this to say on the matter:
John F. Kennedy wrote:I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
[...]
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:14:46
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."
2016/02/03 19:25:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Also, would you be comfortable with Keith Ellison or André Carson saying they're "Muslim first, American second..." or Dianne Feinstein or Barbra Boxer saying they're "Jewish first, American second...?"
I said ambivalent... in those cases, that would be the same. I wished we would say "American" first, rather than Religion or race first.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
His obsession with "religious liberty."
K... that's fair enough. I'll welcome such debate.
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
It's something he was accused of by his opponents, primarily evangelicals like Ted Cruz. Of course, you seem to be forgetting that Kennedy, in one of his most famous speeches, had this to say on the matter:
John F. Kennedy wrote:I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
[...]
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
I'm not forgetting anything... and yet, you seem to believe that Cruz would be incapable of doing what JFK did.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
those don't go together...
