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.
2016/02/23 00:35:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Mr Cruz told reporters on Monday. "We are not a campaign that is going to question the faith of another candidate for president.
I find this interested with all the right wing accusations that Obama is a Muslim...(I don't know how much of an effect that Cruz had on that)
For me, the truly laughable statement (from CNN's article on it) was:
"I have made clear in this campaign we will conduct this campaign with the very highest standards and integrity," Cruz told reporters Monday...
This, coming just after Cruz's campaign photoshopped an image of Rubio shaking hands with Obama over something.
"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
2016/02/23 00:39:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
That's at least the second time you've said that. Care to cite them?
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."
2016/02/23 00:53:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" .
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
Not quite. At best, it's a toss up.
However, that's only if it only effected immigrants, and trump wanted it to effect everybody, so it would get rejected so fast you would get whiplash by watching it. If it did only effect immigrants, its of dubious constitutionality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 00:56:29
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.
2016/02/23 00:56:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
.
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
It has nothing to do with being allowed to practice their religion. The government can not use religion as any sort of determination for anything.
2016/02/23 01:20:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
shasolenzabi wrote: Yeah, but so much of her results had something to do with the concentration of people in general in the county that Vegas is nestled in as it is the most densely populated precinct of NV, Had Sanders focused a bit more there as Clinton had, he may have had a bigger impact, he went the whole state, thus spreading around, but not enough on Clark county, had he understood NV as Hillary had, and she has been working over NV for some time as she wanted to win there yet again, and not lose as she did in '08. But she had similar results vs Obama in 2008 in NV a she had to Bernie.
Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada in 2008.
Bernie's message is what is fighting against her PACs+Media+Pundits+DWS lead DNC
That's a bit of a story. I mean, first up, if you ever wanted a primary to show how little big money mattered, it's this election. Bush started with a war chest of $100 million, and his best result was about 10% of the vote and a 4th place finish. You can have all the advertising money in the world, and it won’t help if you’ve got a bad product.
So instead you have to consider that just maybe, some people actually like Clinton or her message. And then if you look at her message and compare it to Sanders. They’re both essentially singing from the same hymn sheet, income equality, improved and cheaper education etc. The difference is Clinton’s aims are much more moderate, while Sanders wants greater change, faster.
In essence it becomes a question of whether you shouldn’t risk missing out on the possible because you tried for the impossible, or if aiming for Mars might make it easier to reach the moon. It actually comes down to a difference in strategy, which is why its so strange that it’s become so emotional for so many Clinton and Sanders supporters.
“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.
2016/02/23 01:25:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sigvatr wrote: Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.
Maybe in future try reading the second and third sentences. "Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point."
I didn't even particularly agree with the article. I'm not convinced Trump would be that much worse than Rubio or Cruz, and I really don't like the idea of registering for the other party to control their nomination, that just strikes me as skeezy. But god damn, please just actually read things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
I think Rubio is far to the right of Romney. I'm actually starting to wonder if the final, terminal kick to the Republican party might come from winning the presidency. The party's brand at the end of GW Bush's term was utterly toxic, and while the Republicans did a great job rebuilding very quickly, I wonder if it will possible to rebuild at all if they elect another president even further to the right.
I mean, it's all speculation. Rubio might move back to the center in the general, and then if he wins office, he might actually be a lot more sensible than his policy releases, that does happen. And even if he goes hard line and it ends in exactly the mess you'd expect, the party might bounce back again. But also maybe not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 01:37:06
“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.
2016/02/23 01:37:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
sebster wrote: I really don't like the idea of registering for the other party to control their nomination, that just strikes me as skeezy.
Maybe because party registration in primaries is a terrible idea.
I'm glad I live in a state with open primaries; I show up next Tuesday, I get a ballot with everyone's name on it, and I pick the one want.
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."
2016/02/23 01:41:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
A system of checks and balances is great, but it isn't so great that you should be okay with electing a crazy bigot because the checks and balances will keep them in line.
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world.
Being seen before the law independent of race or religion is a fundamental human right. Did I really have to type that out?
Heck, Carter did it with Iran.
Iran is not a religion.
“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.
2016/02/23 01:45:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
There you have it folks. When talking about banning people from entering the US because of their religion, CptJake says it is 'probably bad'.
fething incredible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb... if it weren't for the Superdelegates... Sanders would be leading big time now.
Well... momentum wise, he'd be. (it'd be a damn new split at this moment).
Whem, with three states counted the lead in delegates is meaningless. Thinking it mattered would mean assuming that 1/3 of all states will break for Sanders the way New Hampshire did, which is clearly ridiculous.
The only relevance the states decided so far have is in the delegates they assign, and in what they tell us about future races. And what they tell us is that Sanders has a lot more staying power than popular wisdom originally expected, but Clinton has a considerable advantage among black voters that will be hard for Sanders to overcome.
And that whole momentum thing makes little sense in a two horse race. It’s important in a larger field, as candidates have to prove they’re a legitimate chance to win, but once you’re down to two candidates it makes no difference. By that stage an individual merely has to select their preferred candidate, whether one or the other is ‘doing better than expected’ couldn’t be less relevant to an individual’s voting choice.
I'm glad I live in a state with open primaries; I show up next Tuesday, I get a ballot with everyone's name on it, and I pick the one want.
I don't know. I mean, this process is about Democrats deciding who they want in the general, and Republicans deciding who they want in the general. There is logic to that being an internal party matter. That it isn’t in some states is fine, I’m not arguing against that. Just saying that it also makes sense for it to be closed, as it is in some states.
But where it is closed, then signing up for that party in order to vote for a candidate you have no intention of voting for in the general… well that strikes me as pretty skeezy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think that state run primaries are stupid, even more so when they are closed.
Why do I have to pay for primaries that I can't even vote in?
And that's a fair point. But it's a point more about state funds being used to administer an internal party matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 02:03:16
“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.
2016/02/23 02:37:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: I think that state run primaries are stupid, even more so when they are closed.
Why do I have to pay for primaries that I can't even vote in?
And that's a fair point. But it's a point more about state funds being used to administer an internal party matter.
Oh, I agree. I don't see why the state is in charge of administering, and paying for, private intraparty elections.
Oklahoma gives parties the options of making their primaries public, and surprisingly enough the Democratic Party actually opened up their primary to Independents this year. My personal preference has been: Give parties a choice. If both parties close their primaries, bill them for the cost of administering the election. Parties who open their primaries to everyone don't get a bill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unrelated:
It looks like someone is arguing that Justice Scalia should still get to vote on upcoming rulings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 02:39:04
2016/02/23 02:49:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The argument is that "we all know how he would have voted, so we should still count his vote". I guess letting conservative judges vote from beyond the grave is a viable method of meeting the needs of the court while blocking a liberal replacement .
Also unrelated:
2016/02/23 03:06:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That has been floating around my Facebook feed all day but I haven't watched it until now.
That was pretty fething good and very well made.
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."
2016/02/23 03:43:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It's just a single lawyer making the argument as far as I know. And I think the story has only been posted on TPM and DailyKos, so I certainly wouldn't consider it as any kind of indication that this idea has any backing from Conservatives in power and so far it's just a couple lefty websites jumping on the most recent "silly thing a righty said" story. Just one of those silly stories that I came across on Facebook that made me giggle
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 03:51:54
2016/02/23 05:30:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world.
...
.
It is a human right and enshrined in the constitution that the government cannot discriminate on the grounds of religion. It hardly makes the US' name shine to say we aren't as bad as places like Saudi Arabia or China.
Do you really want a president who cannot take the oath of office without perjuring himself? The system of checks and balances starts before you get a loony in the White House, not afterwards. It starts with the nomination process.
A lot of people seem to really be misunderstanding the Constitutional protections on religion and how they apply to immigration. In a nutshell, they kind of don't. They protect the exercise of religion by citizens and those in the US, not those who seek entry.
What I want in a president is irrelevant (and not present in any of the would be nominees of either party). If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it.
Regardless, if said leader overstepped their bounds, we have 2 branches of government that get a say in it.
What I think is very interesting is that Trump seems to be enjoying his popularity not in spite of but because of his populist, nationalist rhetoric. Likewise, Sanders is also tapping into a strong populist vein. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction and anger in the American electorate that the political classes have largely ignored or coopted ineffectively. You see this on both sides of the political spectrum and seems intrinsically tied to perceptions of safety and economic disadvantage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 19:42:18
-James
2016/02/23 19:49:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: A lot of people seem to really be misunderstanding the Constitutional protections on religion and how they apply to immigration. In a nutshell, they kind of don't. They protect the exercise of religion by citizens and those in the US, not those who seek entry.
That is incorrect. The Constitution is a limit on the power of the government, not an allowance for citizens to do things. The government cannot constitutionally use religion as a basis for anything at all.
2016/02/23 20:16:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 20:20:41
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
2016/02/23 20:21:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I've been reading 538 a bit and playing with their primary voting tools...
It really does seem to me that Trump is going to win the GOP nomination.
Sweet Jesus... just go ahead and accept that Clinton will be the next President.
Here's why...
It's essentially a 3-man race now between Trump/Cruz/Rubio.
Trump is really kicking arse in the polls hovering around the 30's (that's now has meaning) and that Cruz/Rubio are consistently stuck in the 20's.
I've argued that it is *Rubio* who'll have a better chance in taking on Clinton because he really contrast really well against her. However, even he is losing steam....
The only way for Rubio to win, is if Cruz either gives up for the good of the party to rally the anti-Trump, or that he spectacularly crashes. None of these really has a chance.
So, at this point, my only hope is that Trump/Cruz/Rubio stays in until the Convention with no-one recieving the necessary votes to be the nominee in the 1st round. Thus, a broker'ed convention begins where the GOP powers-to-be get to pick. I can't see them taking Trump as the top of the ticket (and he'll likely won't accept a VP slot)... then it would be down to Cruz vs Rubio.
If they pick Rubio... we'd have a "close game".
If they pick Cruz, I feel that the Clinton Machine™ can take him on...
Trump is the wild card. I mean seriously... if a non-Trump-politician said the things he has said in the last 6 months, they'd never be on anyone's ballot in the first place.
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
I have been looking at this these past few days, and I'd have to agree with you Ouze.
My gut reaction was that, "no... they can't do that"... but, I'm at a loss from a legal perspective 'what' would prevent this.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 20:28:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/23 21:28:38
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
I have been looking at this these past few days, and I'd have to agree with you Ouze.
My gut reaction was that, "no... they can't do that"... but, I'm at a loss from a legal perspective 'what' would prevent this.
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
"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
2016/02/23 21:31:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That is incorrect. The Constitution is a limit on the power of the government, not an allowance for citizens to do things. The government cannot constitutionally use religion as a basis for anything at all.
Source? If you are thinking the 1964 Civil Rights act, it only applies within the jurisdiction, not to alien admissibility, which has its own set of rules. Maybe you were thinking the 14th Amendment?
The Equal Protection Clause U.S. Const. Am. XIV § 1 prohibits States from denying any person within its jurisdiction "equal protection of the laws." Again, not alien admissibility.
Please note that just because something is permissible under the constitution (or any law) does not make it a good or wise action. Additionally, it may run afoul of some international agreements or international law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/23 21:45:12
-James
2016/02/23 21:40:08
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
The First Amendment has been ruled to pertain to all levels of government. It keeps the states and cities from enacting laws as much as it does the federal government.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 21:41:46
2016/02/23 21:46:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
The First Amendment has been ruled to pertain to all levels of government. It keeps the states and cities from enacting laws as much as it does the federal government.
