"Armed" is the first word in the title of both videos. The issue is guns, just like liberals whined about an anti-Obama demonstration that had armed attendees in an open carry state.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
"Armed" is the first word in the title of both videos. The issue is guns, just like liberals whined about an anti-Obama demonstration that had armed attendees in an open carry state.
Thank goodness we had some more drop outs after NH. I wish Jeb would give up too already. Rubio is the best shot of uniting the Republicans and presenting the best face forward in the general election.
Maybe you're much tougher than me, but I find a mob of armed men more intimidating than an unarmed mob, yes (especially if there have already been acts of violence). Generally, brandishing weapons is considered an escalation of force already. And let's be honest, if there were mobs of armed muslims protesting, there would be a massive outrage.
BTW, these seem to be the kind of people who are opposed to any gun measures and profess to love the constitution, especially the second amendment. Maybe they should look up the bit about freedom of religion, I'm pretty sure it's in there too.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Hasn't there been a direct inverse polling relationship between the two? IE if Cruz rises then Trump falls and vice versa? Seem to be fishing from similar ponds then.
If Cruz were to drop out tomorrow I think Trump would benefit the most and vice versa.
I'd say most Americans don't know/understand our political structures, or how much processes vary by state. One can be quite "informed" in their home state, but have no idea how things work in other states. Caucuses vs primaries, open vs closed voting, voter registration requirements, etc. ARE a jumbled mess on a macro level. Delegates and Super-delegates control the nomination process....adding another layer of "process" that most people can't explain.
It's not 'garbage' to suggest the US is not living up to its constitutional ideal as a democratic republic. When millions of people are rejecting 'conventional' political party wisdom, and want any candidate thatcanpromises to turn things around.....that's an indictment of our structures and processes.
No. Islamophobia is in full view during the campaign to nominate the next POTUS.Unfortunately, there are so many people who really do believe that our problems stem from non-Christian beliefs (particularly in the Republican Party) that it's become a policy/voting issue.
First off, define what a "mainstream candidate" means. Then explain why people are moving between (D) and (R) parties to vote for candidates that don't fit traditional/conventional party profiles.
You can protest things that are constitutionally protected... not all protests are about trying to get the government to take action.
In addition 'right wing' protests where part of the crowd is armed tend to be incredibly safe. Almost no property damage has ever occurred when a tea party protest took place (for example). Unlike left wing protests (Occupy, BLM, WTO protests) which frequently turn violent and have police having to come out in riot gear. It has nothing to do with me being 'tough' or other nonsense but actually looking at the history of them.
Now can there be violent protests on the right? Sure. Can there be non-violent protests on the left? Sure. But generally there will be more violence at the left wing protests.
Citation needed.But generally there will be more violence at the left wing protests.
Seriously? Left wing protests frequently end up with smashed windows, graffiti and other violence. The same can not be said in reverse.
I think that by and large they know what they need to, at least.
They're not anywhere near a mess actually and the fact that there are differences would not and could not make them a jumped mess on a macro level anyway because there is no macro level. They aren't smaller parts of a larger whole, they're each completely independent contributors to something else. They don't HAVE to work together or align in any sort of way, no matter how much it would warm your clockwork little heart for them to be neatly arrayed like that.Caucuses vs primaries, open vs closed voting, voter registration requirements, etc. ARE a jumbled mess on a macro level.
Delegates don't (not now anyway. In bygone times when the nomination process wasn't such an exercise in public democracy they did but not now, except in conditions which are not realistically imaginable). Super-delegates conceivably could. . . but in practice do not. In practice it turns out they work to support the public democracy process and reinforce the conventional result rather than in the wild-card fashion so fondly talked of in this 24-hour infotainment culture.Delegates and Super-delegates control the nomination process....adding another layer of "process" that most people can't explain.
What does any of the structure and process have to do with "rejecting conventional party wisdom"? How is any of this a failure as a democratic republic? I see you're in one of your buzzword-controlled delusional states again.It's not 'garbage' to suggest the US is not living up to its constitutional ideal as a democratic republic. When millions of people are rejecting 'conventional' political party wisdom, and want any candidate thatcanpromises to turn things around.....that's an indictment of our structures and processes.
I could not begin to provide a definition that would satisfy you in your present condition. And I'm not seeing movement between the parties here. Within the parties some, sure, though it has been repeatedly pointed out how we actually see this pattern almost every time (if perhaps not to quite the extent shown by Trump's polling numbers though even those can be more than adequately explained by other factors like the relentless exaltation of Trump awareness being driven by the media) which would simply reflect what we already knew from the "Tea Party," that people are shifting in a more populist direction politically right now. It happens, particularly after an extended period of focus abroad.First off, define what a "mainstream candidate" means. Then explain why people are moving between (D) and (R) parties to vote for candidates that don't fit traditional/conventional party profiles.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Oh wait...this is Saturday...do you love me now?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10988380/donald-trump-9-11
Trump's finally gon' and done it
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What...tell the truth?
The strange thing is that after months of watching Trump say things that are racist, absurd, patently false, or all three at once, the Republican Party establishment decided to stomp on him for saying things that are basically true.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So, is Cruz an eligible candidate? Should he be? What would/should Cruz believe about his own eligibility?
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Of course he's eligible. He was born a citizen and never naturalised.
When this question initially came up, the conventional wisdom among constitutional lawyers was that it was a non-issue: Cruz was obviously eligible. But as the debate has heated up among candidates (with Donald Trump, in particular, fanning the flames), it's also begun to heat up among constitutional law scholars.
The issue is actually twofold: whether Ted Cruz should be considered a natural-born citizen, and whether Cruz's own preferred school of constitutional interpretation would see it that way.
The problem: the meaning of "natural-born citizen"
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not fuzzy, it's just limited people being idiots.
Has this matter already been settled, legally? Yes or no?
Would eligibility be consistent with Cruz's own approach to the constitution? Yes or no?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, it has been settled. Just because there isn't an explicit SCOTUS ruiling doesn't mean the legal status of the question is actually unsettled. There are lots of things which haven't been explicitly addressed by the Supreme Court which are nonetheless not validly disputed.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
natural born Citizen has not been legally defined. It's a legislative task that must ultimately be upheld by SCOTUS. Three takes on Naturalization:
1. Born within our boundaries -- no paperwork required (Natural Born Citizen)
2. Born outside our boundaries to a US citizen -- paperwork must be filed ( ? )
3. Born outside our boundaries to non US citizen -- paperwork must be filed (NOT a Natural Born Citizen)
Do you see the difference between 2 and 3?
That's why it's a legislative issue.
Last edited by Being; 02-20-2016 at 05:44 AM.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Alternatively
1 Born inside borders, a citizen from birth.
2 Born outside borders to US citizens parent (s), a citizen from birth.
3 Born outside borders to non citizen parents, not a citizen from birth, need to undergo naturalisation process.
See the difference? Paperwork must always be filed for everything. Surely even if born inside borders paperwork for a birth certificate needs filing.
Interesting that Cruz doesn't appear to be able to carry the S.C. Bible Belt.
And Bush is out.
Last edited by Hazir; 02-21-2016 at 12:41 AM.
Congratulations America
Thank goodness Bush is out. Ugh Trump is no one's 2nd choice... he's not going to get over 40% even if there were just two guys left. Cruz and Rubio need to cut a deal before this shit goes on too long.
Trump has got 60/60 delegates tonight I believe in SC. He achieved a victory in NH on a scale I didn't believe he could. He may actually do this.
As for second choices, if Trump is poling approximately 40% in places like Florida with an ~20% lead then Bush's 4% is going to make little difference.
Well it does help. The real toss up is between Rubio and Cruz. Together they have more than Trump. Go Pres/VP make a deal but at all costs beat Trump.
I don't really find Cruz any more palatable a candidate than Trump.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Trump seeks better than Cruz to me.
What are you people smoking? Cruz is quite conservative yes but he isn't unhinged like Donald. He doesn't create enemies lists and doesn't think Russia is our BFF. It is difficult to say what Trump's true positions are so I suppose you might be thinking you only have a 50/50 shot of him starting a trade war with China and other moronic things but I for one would rather have stability than a guessing game of what Trump will do next.
I'd prefer Marco over either of them but ultimately anyone but Trump.
Then you must be pleased with Bush getting out.
Strangely enough I have this feeling that some day we'll see the system is Trump's madness.
Congratulations America
Trump may be only pretending to be nuts. Cruz definitely is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote