I suspect Canada is mostly two-party at the regional levels, with the choice of parties differring a little from region to region.Originally Posted by RandBlade
I suspect Canada is mostly two-party at the regional levels, with the choice of parties differring a little from region to region.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If that's not the case, it would be interesting to learn why those silly Canucks (along with Indians etc) act like they haven't heard of Duverger's law
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The New Democrats did well in two elections, and they did so by almost displacing the Liberals. I.e. it looked like there would be a realignment before the Liberals bounced back. It's not a stable system. See US in 1850s.
Minx, India has 2 national parties. The rest are caste or regional ones.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, I was confused by this blog post:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...rrot-dunleavy/
And on the matter of Canada, some thoughts on why things are not what they seem:
http://cps.sagepub.com.proxy.ub.umu.....full.pdf+html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The Canada link doesn't work.
Not sure I get the guy's UK argument. If anything, the UK shows that even if people are desperate for a multi-party system, they're still going to end up with two parties as long as they have FPTP.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not sure people are desperate for a third party here. Northern Ireland is the one region permanently with more than two parties.
Again, a question of regional politics. The Northern Irish Assembly is chosen on the basis of PR, which means there are more than two major parties in the region. The loyalty to multiple parties carries over to the general elections. Note how North Ireland only had two parties until the 2001 general election, which was a few years after the creation of the Northern Irish Assembly.
Hope is the denial of reality
They had long had three but Sinn Fein don't take up their seats so it appeared as two.
Northern Ireland effectively has two separate two party systems running along sectarian lines. Politics there are so unusual I don't think you can draw any wider conclusions from it.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
U.S. Capitol Shooting: Gunman Is ‘Prophet of God’ Leading a ‘Movement’
Well, looks like it's time for more police patrols in Christian neighbourhoods, before any more of them are radicalised. Ted Cruz will be right on that, and Lewkowski will back him up.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Rather an apples to oranges comparison, though I imagine most Christian neighborhoods wouldn't mind. Generally speaking the police are the good guys.
So what you're saying is that after Jonestown it should have been illegal for the government to investigate other parts of the People's Temple religious movement?
Furthermore "police patrols" is not a violation of the 4th amendment.
Its rather absurd you keep wanting to tie the hands of law enforcement. Next you'll be on board ignoring social media posts praising jihad because that's religious speech and we can't investigate that!
Y'all don't get the bigger picture. There are active efforts for terrorist sympathizers to recruit more terrorists from inside Western countries. This is an active effort. Terrorist organizations aren't infiltrating churches and synagogues and doing the same thing. I'm not suggesting we arrest, confine, harass or do anything else that would inflict harm - I'm asking that law enforcement be given leeway into investigating potential existential threats to American security. The fact that everyone is up in arms about it is kind of crazy.It wouldn't be illegal because you'd only focus on one religion, it'd be illegal because religious affiliation does not justify general govt. surveillance. The vast majority of American Muslims aren't terrorists. Just because someone is a Muslim does not mean you have legally valid grounds to monitor him "just in case". It'd be easier to defend monitoring all American men just in case they may be rapists. At least that wouldn't be arbitrary
Cruz wasn't my guy but I'm going for him now. If Trump can be stopped (sadly look less likely) I believe Cruz could win in a general election against Clinton. She has a huge amount of baggage and Cruz is the consummate 'outsider.' Most Americans are not happy with government right now.
Trump is more an outsider than Cruz if that's your logic ...
What you're trying to suggest with this statement is beyond kind of crazy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Cruz is not talking about things like police patrols and everyone on here knows that you're not limiting your idea of investigation to that either, but are including levels of harassment that damn well do require a showing of probable cause. Your idea of "probable cause" is "they're Muslim." So is Cruz', hence that bit about denying people entry into the country using religion as exclusionary criteria. How the hell do you think making a religion an exclusion category for entry into the country is not a violation of the 1st amendment?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Freedom of religion clearly means the freedom of Christians to oppress non-Christians.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...s-cnn-townhall
Another non-answer. First he claims the police should target Muslim neighborhoods, then he claims he's only against Islamists. Except he didn't say to target Islamist neighborhoods (which don't really exist in the US). So Lewk, do you think it's ok for someone to be a liar who spits on the Constitution?
Last edited by Loki; 03-30-2016 at 02:41 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes but I'm talking about a general election match-up. Trump has more baggage than even Clinton.
9/11 had a price tag (beyond just loss of life and mental anguish of a nation) in the trillion dollar range.
Considering that the effect was over a period of several years, you're saying that something that hurts US GDP by 1-2% a year is an existential threat. Right.
Hope is the denial of reality
Probably an attempt to narrow what he meant. Islamist neighborhoods would be more of an issue than simply a Muslim one. Hell it could have even been what he *meant* in the first place. I don't have a crystal ball to see inside his head. The bottom line in what he is saying is that there is a war on terror and the enemy is radical Islam. It is the DEFINING characteristic of the enemy. I also appreciated the line about Obama lecturing about Islamophobia, because he's right that seems to be the post speech of every terror event that has occurred during his administration.Freedom of religion clearly means the freedom of Christians to oppress non-Christians.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...s-cnn-townhall
Another non-answer. First he claims the police should target Muslim neighborhoods, then he claims he's only against Islamists. Except he didn't say to target Islamist neighborhoods (which don't really exist in the US). So Lewk, do you think it's ok for someone to be a liar who spits on the Constitution?
Again over and over again - police investigation is not harm, without harm you don't meet the standard of interfering with the free exercise clause. He isn't spitting on the constitution and his knowledge of said document probably far surpasses yours.
That was one massive terrorist event - imagine the confidence level and the fear factor that would cripple the economy if we had 2 or 3 of that scale in a year or two?
Preventing citizens from coming into the country due to their religion is absolutely a 1st amendment violation. Preventing a non-citizen is not. I do think they are incredibly silly to support using religion as a test to come to the country however I would absolutely be OK with a higher level of investigation of individuals coming from known terror hot spots and their religious affiliation. This is just common sense and would not violate the 1st amendment even if they were citizens already. (In essence the entire argument in this thread).
I also never said religion was probable cause - that's your argument which is NOT the logical conclusion of 'police patrols.' You've bought into the leftist anti-police rhetoric. No one likes being pulled over for speeding but seeing a cop in the neighborhood is almost always viewed as a positive thing if you aren't actually a criminal yourself.
Yes it is. The prohibitions on government action built into the Constitution don't apply only to some groups of people, Lewk. They're blanket protections, they cover ALL government action. I'm going to repeat that, Constitutional material like the 1st Amendment are not protections targeted at select people, they are prohibitions targeted at the government. The US government doesn't have any more right to interfere with journalism from foreign sources than it does with the domestic press, for instance, even though the foreign press corps is not composed of US citizens. The US government CANNOT make any exclusionary rule targeted at a single religion, no matter which subsets of people it affects, it is forbidden from singling out specific religions at all. In trying to do so it violates both the establishment and the free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.
You think seeing a cop is almost always a positive thing because A) you never feel like they're targeted at you regardless of whether you've done something wrong or not and B) you're so perversely law-and-order you think police misbehavior is the next thing to nonexistent (partly because, again, you're a middle-aged, middle-class white male and as such you and those you identify with don't get targeted, and wouldn't be targeted even if you were engaged in something nefarious). And let's not ignore the fact that the police aren't going to find ANYTHING by maintaining an increased patrol presence in "Muslim neighborhoods." Not one incident of terrorism rooted in Islamic identity has arisen from such a neighborhood in the US. Not 9/11, the Washington sniper, the Fort Hood shooting, San Bernardino, or the Boston Marathon bombing. But if you do this, if you flood their homes with officers who harass them and make it absolutely clear that they're not trusted or wanted, then you might just manage to radicalize a few and create the threat you claim to be trying to prevent.I also never said religion was probable cause - that's your argument which is NOT the logical conclusion of 'police patrols.' You've bought into the leftist anti-police rhetoric. No one likes being pulled over for speeding but seeing a cop in the neighborhood is almost always viewed as a positive thing if you aren't actually a criminal yourself.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I believe the 1st amendment applies to citizens and people in the USA, it does not apply to foreigners seeking a visa or green card.
EDIT: I see you've addressed this in the post above which I hadn't reached yet but I'm not sure you're right and would like to see case history to support that. I know its ancient case history but in the 19th century there were many cases where SCOTUS drew a distinction between citizens and non-citizens as far as the constitutionality of the governments actions applied - for example United States v Wong Kim Ark
In what way?
I imagine they would if the police were there to, e.g. stop and search or go ransacking through their Churches or whatever it is Cruz is *actually* proposing the police do in Muslim neighbourhoods.I imagine most Christian neighborhoods wouldn't mind. Generally speaking the police are the good guys.
9/11 wasn't done by indigenous Americans, what Cruz is proposing would have done exactly jack and shit to stop it.9/11 had a price tag (beyond just loss of life and mental anguish of a nation) in the trillion dollar range.
I don't know about that. I think Trump is going to narrowly miss out on a majority of delegates, and if that happens then it's really anyone guess who ends up as the nominee.If Trump can be stopped (sadly look less likely) I believe Cruz could win in a general election against Clinton.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 03-30-2016 at 11:52 AM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Congress has a little more leeway when it comes to immigration matters but other than that the 1st amendment defines what kinds of laws Congress may not make. Harassing American citizens on the basis of their religious affiliation is out anyway.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I agree completely, I'm talking about the immigration proposal to block immigrants based on religion. Congress and SCOTUS has precedence on this being permitted based on race (the Chinese Exclusion Act) at least.
I'm not saying going back to 19th century laws is remotely a good thing or even that SCOTUS would uphold the same laws today as it did then.
Which has happened more than once thanks to the leeway already given to those who manage and enforce the no fly list. Now that right there isn't a complete block for getting back into the country but enough that your average citizen can't afford to return via other methods. Now imagine that level of headache and inconvenience at every aspect of your life, all the way down to not being able to pay your dog walker because your dogs name is Dash, and thats too similar to Daesh.
More leeway is the LAST thing law enforcement in this country needs. For someone who hates big government you sure do love trying to use it to fuck over others who aren't like you.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 03-30-2016 at 02:31 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
