2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V - Page 30 - 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, 10:30 PM   #436
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Mack_Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: definitely Osaka
Posts: 6,626
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
well that's disgusting.
__________________

__________________
Mack_Again is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:31 PM   #437
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
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.

I'm willing to be corrected about this from someone who knows more than I (anitram?), but my understanding is that is not quite true. Why? Not because people question whether Cruz was an American citizen at birth. He clearly was. My understanding is that there is actually legitimate debate about what "natural born citizen" means. The most obvious reading is "citizen at birth", but, apparently, there's a decent argument that "natural born" means "citizen by virtue of the constitution" instead of "citizen by virtue of Congressional statute", where citizenship from a birth within the US is granted by the constitution but citizenship by being abroad to American parents is granted by Congressional statute.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:31 PM   #438
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

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.
You're just so wrong here it's hilarious.

It's taught in our school systems the way I view the topic. It's why I view the topic the way I do. It's how I was taught.

Bringing it before the courts settles the dispute. Ends the conversation. Educates people correctly. Starts a new conversation about whether people who gain citizenship can run, etc.

Your reaction is beyond over the top at this point. You've flipped out about stuff before, but this is a new level.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:35 PM   #439
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: 19,271
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack_Again View Post
well that's disgusting.
My thoughts exactly. Not surprising, of course, given the GOP's attitude on the gun issue, but still...ugh.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:40 PM   #440
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,378
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gump View Post
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.

You're right, I'm basically xenophobic and nativist by suggesting that Ted Cruz, who I hate, shouldn't have his eligibility for presidency put into question because he's Canadian.

But yes, I do believe that having the experience of living in this country and paying taxes and, you know, having this citizenship issue actually apply *to me* (not that I'm running for president)... sort of makes my opinion a little more relevant. Because it's just an opinion. If it were facts we were debating, that's different. But this is all opinion. And with anything opinion based.. say, gay marriage, yes, I think the opinion of a gay person is a lot more important than the opinion of a straight person. Not that the opinion of a straight person is invalid, but it's definitely less meaningful to that individual than it is to someone who is more directly impacted by the topic.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:41 PM   #441
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
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.

Holy fuck, I was on mobile and didn't see what this was.

I can't live here much longer. I can't. A gun means America?! Why. Why the fuck?

God... I love this country. It's beautiful, it's fun, it has such a short history it feels like we're still apart of its formation.

But this makes me sick. It makes me want to cry, I feel helpless and hopeless to ever be able to convey how I feel.

It's getting to the point of feeling like I'm in a toxic relationship that I can't find it in my heart to give up on.

Jesus. That picture disgusts me.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:43 PM   #442
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
You're right, I'm basically xenophobic and nativist by suggesting that Ted Cruz, who I hate, shouldn't have his eligibility for presidency put into question because he's Canadian.

But yes, I do believe that having the experience of living in this country and paying taxes and, you know, having this citizenship issue actually apply *to me* (not that I'm running for president)... sort of makes my opinion a little more relevant. Because it's just an opinion. If it were facts we were debating, that's different. But this is all opinion. And with anything opinion based.. say, gay marriage, yes, I think the opinion of a gay person is a lot more important than the opinion of a straight person. Not that the opinion of a straight person is invalid, but it's definitely less meaningful to that individual than it is to someone who is more directly impacted by the topic.
I think Gump's opinion is more relevant to this topic than yours, in that case.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:45 PM   #443
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,378
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
You're just so wrong here it's hilarious.

Great starting point.

Quote:

It's taught in our school systems the way I view the topic. It's why I view the topic the way I do. It's how I was taught.

Bringing it before the courts settles the dispute. Ends the conversation. Educates people correctly. Starts a new conversation about whether people who gain citizenship can run, etc.
What are you even talking about? What is "taught in our school systems?" What do you think the basis of a lawsuit on this case would be?



Quote:

Your reaction is beyond over the top at this point. You've flipped out about stuff before, but this is a new level.

K.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 10:52 PM   #444
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
It's simple. I was taught in elementary school that unless you were born on a military base, or when parents were abroad on, say, vacation, if you weren't born on US soil, you're not a naturalized citizen. It's how I was led to understand it through all 18 years of formal education I've been through, including pursuing a history degree.

And honest to God, until a few weeks ago, I never even realized that was a topic up for debate.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:02 PM   #445
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
What do you think the basis of a lawsuit on this case would be?.
I dug into this matter a bit more. While it's not 100% clear that the definition of "natural born citizen" works in Cruz's favor (see: Is Cruz 'Natural Born'? Well ... Maybe - Bloomberg View), it seems like there's a bit less debate on it then I originally thought or Professor Sunstein in that Bloomberg article would have us believe (see: On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” - On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”). But still, I wonder if the argument is strong enough to mean that a lawsuit could be brought up by a court.
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:03 PM   #446
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,039
Local Time: 04:18 AM
This ongoing topic is tiresome but here I am again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I'm not at all agreeing on how it should be interpreted. I'm saying that it shouldn't be interpreted at all.
... so you basically don't understand what reading is. That's all I got out of this remark. You do realise that any act of reading involves interpretation? You have to comprehend the meaning, and sometimes that meaning will be straightforward and sometimes it will be ambiguous. In this case, there is an element of ambiguity, as evidenced by the historic debate about the clause's meaning, hence a court ruling would be beneficial. You may not consider it ambiguous, you may think there is only one interpretation, but there is sufficient disagreement for this to be subject to debate.

Also, there is no "status quo" on this issue because no person born outside the US has ever been elected to the presidency (or, in the case of eight early presidents, they met the alternative criteria of citizenship at the time the US came into existence). Had McCain won in 2008, it might have been tested. Had Obama actually been born in Kenya, it would have been tested. If Cruz wins later this year, it will be tested. Until then, there is no precedent and YOUR INTERPRETATION of "natural born citizen" is just one of multiple.

What's wrong with confirming his eligibility anyway? Drop the shtick of making accusations of partisanship. I've already stated that I think any such case would confirm Cruz's eligibility, so it's not as if I'm pushing this as a means of disqualifying him. I'm saying an ambiguous constitutional requirement needs judicial clarification.

Quote:
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.
You said you "don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them". Never mind if they may have a well formed view?

You or anybody else are welcome to post whatever opinion you want about Australian or New Zealand politics. Not enough people on Interference do. Look at how well the Aussie and Kiwi election threads do compared to this five-threads-and-counting behemoth. I don't care if someone's never been here, just as long as they can make an intelligent contribution to the discussion.
__________________
"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, 11:05 PM   #447
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I dug into this matter a bit more. While it's not 100% clear that the definition of "natural born citizen" works in Cruz's favor (see: Is Cruz 'Natural Born'? Well ... Maybe - Bloomberg View), it seems like there's a bit less debate on it then I originally thought or Professor Sunstein in that Bloomberg article would have us believe (see: On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” - On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”). But still, I wonder if the argument is strong enough to mean that a lawsuit could be brought up by a court.
I mean, that's the thing, I honestly don't care. I just don't think it's ever come up to THIS degree before. The Obama thing was a farce. Completely made up. Cruz 100% legitimately was born in Canada. This is kinda fun and exciting, because it means that we should see something change in our system of law. I like seeing that happen, because, again, it reminds me that our system of government was always meant to be a living, breathing thing. So, to see the potential for this debate to be settled (at least for the time being. The book is never closed on these things), would be interesting.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:12 PM   #448
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,378
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
It's simple. I was taught in elementary school that unless you were born on a military base, or when parents were abroad on, say, vacation, if you weren't born on US soil, you're not a naturalized citizen. It's how I was led to understand it through all 18 years of formal education I've been through, including pursuing a history degree.

And honest to God, until a few weeks ago, I never even realized that was a topic up for debate.

Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app

See, this post is evidence enough that you've just been disregarding what I've been saying and assuming I'm saying something else.

"Natural born citizen" is undefined in the constitution. There is no definition what you leaned in school was subject to whatever interpretation was bestowed upon you. But there's nothing that details whether or not being born in the United States is a requisite for being a naturally born citizen. The only thing the constitution says is basically "if you're naturally born after we make this constitution, or if you were made a citizen upon the establishment of this constitution." Zero definition. Break that down mathematically, or logically... it's a system of infinite linear combinations. Without understanding the initial conditions, you won't know the real equation. It's up to us to define "naturally born" citizen, not to simply determine what was meant by it. If you determine what was meant by it, you are effectively guessing.

So, to date, the only people that have otherwise thought someone wasn't naturally born a citizen if they weren't born on the mainland have only been doing so as per an agenda. Two notable examples: Obama and Cruz.

So yes, if a democrat accuses Cruz of not being eligible, they're taking the same stance that birthers took. It's not defined, at all. And under the assumption that someone *could've* been president (say, if Obama was actually born in Kenya, or if Cruz were to be elected) sort of leaves the status quo of inclusiveness of "citizen at birth" to be included within "naturally born."

It's like, again, the idea of gay marriage. Nothing at the moment says two gay people *can* get married. There's just nothing saying they *cant* anymore. So, it's not directly protected, but indirectly by civil rights. It needs to be directly protected in order to chalk it down as affirmative. That fight, unfortunately, is not over yet.

Nothing says Ted Cruz *cant* run right now. It's undefined. There needs to be an actual definition of naturally born citizen that discludes those born aboard before you can declare him ineligible.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:16 PM   #449
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
And under the assumption that someone *could've* been president (say, if Obama was actually born in Kenya, or if Cruz were to be elected) sort of leaves the status quo of inclusiveness of "citizen at birth" to be included within "naturally born."
But. He. WASN'T. There was nothing to bring before the Supreme Court in order to have the law defined. What is so difficult about this for you to understand? You're saying in one post that there's nothing to define, and yet here you say:


Quote:

Nothing says Ted Cruz *cant* run right now. It's undefined. There needs to be an actual definition of naturally born citizen that discludes those born aboard before you can declare him ineligible.
All the counter argument to your posts are saying is that it would be nice to get it DEFINED. That's it. You CAN declare him ineligible because of the ambiguity. Once that happens, lawmakers determine the actual law. Boom, done.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:20 PM   #450
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,810
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
A gun means America?! Why. Why the fuck?


We didn't even invent them. We just use them and disperse them in mindbogglingly incompetent ways. This should be our flag:

__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon 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 12:18 PM.


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