2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2016, 07:58 PM   #421
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,035
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
It's a technicality.
Yes, and courts and legislatures deal with these all the time.

Try harder. Or don't. It feels like you're now just arguing for the sake of arguing, refusing to back down in the face of good rebuttals from multiple posters, and I have better things to do with my day.
__________________

__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:03 PM   #422
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago.
It's called a declaratory judgment. I'd like to hear your reasoning on why and how you think that this is actually an available form of potential legal remedy (aside from your man Trump yelling it out every 5 minutes).

Quote:
I'm no legal scholar
Yes. Maybe leaving it at that would suffice.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:08 PM   #423
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Mack_Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: definitely Osaka
Posts: 6,626
Local Time: 07:58 AM
I am not a legal scholar so I would not participate this discussion.
__________________
Mack_Again is online now  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:12 PM   #424
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 06:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.
By that logic, there'd be lots of political issues individual posters should stay away from discussing on here, then, since they won't always "directly pertain to them".

Seriously, what an odd response. I love hearing thoughts from non-U.S. posters about our country's way of doing things. Never hurts to get a perspective from an objective (or relatively objective, depending on the situation) third party. Plus, as Axver noted, what happens in the U.S. can often have an impact beyond our borders.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:24 PM   #425
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
It's called a declaratory judgment.







Yes. Maybe leaving it at that would suffice.

Statement, judgment. Forgot the precise terminology. Is anybody in here a lawyer? No sense boiling over when everybody is debating the same issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:25 PM   #426
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,806
Local Time: 04:58 AM
This question needs to be answered just so we can avoid these stupid fucking debates every election cycle.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:39 PM   #427
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
This question needs to be answered just so we can avoid these stupid fucking debates every election cycle.

True


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:41 PM   #428
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Statement, judgment. Forgot the precise terminology. Is anybody in here a lawyer? No sense boiling over when everybody is debating the same issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Sorry. Just realized you are a lawyer


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 09:03 PM   #429
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
No, critical thinking would recognise that there are a range of opinions on the interpretation of this clause, some of which diverge from your own. It has been interpreted differently across American history by political figures, legal scholars, and others. Your failure to acknowledge this is not critical thinking, it is simplistic.

That's just it though, it's an opinion. Everyone has one. My intention of "thinking critically" is to acknowledge that the only reason someone wants to question Ted Cruz's eligibility is because they want to question Ted Cruz. I don't care what someone's "interpretation" of ye old word is. Constitutionalism is wrong. That's treating it like its the bible. If it's a serious question, take it to referendum or seek an amendment of the wording is confusing or not properly understood.

Quote:
I don't even know why you're pursuing this so vehemently because we agree about how it should be interpreted. You just seem unwilling to entertain that other perspectives exist or that there could be a need to clarify the definition in a court of law.
I'm not at all agreeing on how it should be interpreted. I'm saying that it shouldn't be interpreted at all. The status quo already exists. If the definition is hazy, redefine it. Don't reinterpret it, because then it's always open to an agenda. Take gay marriage or abortion into context... depending upon the mood and makeup of the court, those can go any direction. If we want true legalization of gay marriage, we ought to have it written into law. Not just interpreted from some two hundred year old document.



Quote:

Stop being silly. Are you even familiar with the sort of legal minutiae that goes before courts? Are you suggesting all court rulings are just "someone's opinion ... because they have a gavel"? This question is of significant import and a court should clarify the interpretation because, as has been noted repeatedly, there are divergent interpretations of the phrase. Should a person born outside the US with American citizenship be elected president, a decision will need to be taken on which interpretation has force of law. I do not see why this is objectionable.

Again, I don't care about interpretation. That's the whole point of Obama appointing a super liberal justice. Because, these days, you have justices like Scalia and Sotomayor who will give their OPINION based upon their agenda.


Quote:

So the only things on which I am allowed an opinion are those that directly affect straight white male New Zealand-Australian dual citizens?

Guess I must now stop caring about marriage equality, feminism, Aboriginal and Maori rights, etc.

What a narrow way of seeing and understanding the world that would be.

I didn't say that at all? You're welcome to have any opinion you want. But, much like if I were lecturing you on what it is to be a New Zealand-Australian dual citizen, you're lecturing me on being an American-Canadian dual citizen. You wouldn't care too much if I told you what it meant to be Kiwi or Aussie, I'm sure. Sorry if that came off offensive. I'm brash, but more so defensive with my wording.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 09:05 PM   #430
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Yes, and courts and legislatures deal with these all the time.



Try harder. Or don't. It feels like you're now just arguing for the sake of arguing, refusing to back down in the face of good rebuttals from multiple posters, and I have better things to do with my day.

I'm refusing to back down because I disagree that they're good points. This topic is only an issue when it's convenient for it to be an issue. It has no other foundation.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 09:28 PM   #431
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,927
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.
Your arguments are horrible in lots of different ways, but just to stay with your own line of thinking, you are crazy if you think that the American presidency has no implications for an Australian-Kiwi person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra...vasion_of_Iraq

I wish it was none of our business (our=a human being anywhere).
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 09:47 PM   #432
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gump View Post
Your arguments are horrible in lots of different ways, but just to stay with your own line of thinking, you are crazy if you think that the American presidency has no implications for an Australian-Kiwi person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra...vasion_of_Iraq

I wish it was none of our business (our=a human being anywhere).

What the hell does that even mean? Where did I suggest that the American presidency doesn't impact anyone else? That's something entirely different from suggesting that an outsider's opinion of constitutional law in the United States matters. You're making it seem like I'm *supporting* Ted Cruz. And, if so, you're exemplifying the problem. Because that would be suggestive of the idea that a lawsuit is a reasonable way to deter Ted Cruz from becoming president.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 09:58 PM   #433
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,039
Local Time: 11:58 PM
I can't even figure out what the fuck you're arguing about. It looks like you're agreeing with each other.

Anyway, good to see Jeb! isn't panicking as his campaign dies in the arse.

__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:14 PM   #434
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 07:58 AM
What we were arguing about was whether or not suing Ted Cruz, from the democrat side, is hypocritical.

My point is that it's already understood that he's eligible for presidency. That's the de facto understanding. It's not something that needs to be questioned, and it's not something that needs to go to court.

One of the biggest things about the xenophobic case of birtherism, to me, was that Obama was still born a citizen regardless of the conspiracy.

In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not even a debate. Some people insist it is a debate, and I'm equating that debate to the equivalent of interpreting the bible. Trying to "understand" the constitution by means of interpretation is a recipe for opinion deciding law. It says what it says, and it won't change unless you change it.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:25 PM   #435
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,927
Local Time: 07:58 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
What the hell does that even mean? Where did I suggest that the American presidency doesn't impact anyone else? That's something entirely different from suggesting that an outsider's opinion of constitutional law in the United States matters. You're making it seem like I'm *supporting* Ted Cruz. And, if so, you're exemplifying the problem. Because that would be suggestive of the idea that a lawsuit is a reasonable way to deter Ted Cruz from becoming president.

Sorry to the rest of the group for prolonging this unnecessarily. My point here is that you keep using an obnoxious argument to suggest that non-US citizens have nothing to contribute on US matters like constitutional law. This is a patently wrong, nativist and unfortunately not uncommon argument. I don't care one bit about who you support for the elections. But I just like to call out bullshit when I see it. What qualifies one to comment on this issue is not one's place of residence, but rather her knowledge of the law. I'd rather debate this with a knowledgeable Martian than an uninformed Georgian or Floridian.
__________________

__________________
gump is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com