2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V - Page 31 - 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, 11:20 PM   #451
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,020
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
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.
I've been thinking about it for three hours and I still can't wrap my head around it. It is genuinely horrific.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:27 PM   #452
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
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:




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.

It would be nice to get it defined. I'm not debating that at all. As it stands right now, it's not defined. I don't understand why you would think that his eligibility is in QUESTION from the get go. "No" is not implied for his bid, at the moment. Nothing is implied.

If you question it, from a dem perspective, it's contrary to a progressive belief. It's also hypocritical, because it's what you would expect from a republican on this issue. It's purely agenda based. Ted Cruz is not obliged to have the US establish law for him. If it's such an issue, this would be something that would be put into question after his conceivable presidency. Not during his run.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:46 PM   #453
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,337
Local Time: 12:33 PM
For fucks sake the entire purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the rule of law.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-16-2016, 11:57 PM   #454
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,010
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
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.
You don't even have to go further than Wikipedia to know this is false, and that the point has been discussed across centuries.

You're seeing agendas and partisanship where there is none. You may be trying to act as if you're above the fray, but it's making you look paranoid.
__________________
"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, 11:59 PM   #455
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
For fucks sake the entire purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the rule of law.

Yes, that's true. Not debating that at all. But, backing this up to the original point: is it hypocritical of one side to open a lawsuit to demand an interpretation of an undefined portion of a law, strictly as per an agenda? Better question: would either side open up a lawsuit on itself?

Actually, Donald Trump is threatening to do that right now. Still agenda based, but I think we can all happily put an asterisk next to Donald as a total troll. But, other than Trump, would you not call it hypocrisy if a lawsuit were to be constructed over this, coming from the more "encompassing" progressive side?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 12:03 AM   #456
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
You don't even have to go further than Wikipedia to know this is false, and that the point has been discussed across centuries.

You're seeing agendas and partisanship where there is none. You may be trying to act as if you're above the fray, but it's making you look paranoid.

I was implying that "to date" meant in recent time. I'm not acting like I'm above anything. If you think that this isn't agenda based, I don't know what to tell you. Do you think birthers weren't agenda based, as per anti-Obama views? And in the hypothetical democratic case of a lawsuit, do you not see that as an agenda, with a total conflict of interest that is contrary to the party's inclusive, anti-xenophobic views?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 12:08 AM   #457
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Yes, that's true. Not debating that at all. But, backing this up to the original point: is it hypocritical of one side to open a lawsuit to demand an interpretation of an undefined portion of a law, strictly as per an agenda? Better question: would either side open up a lawsuit on itself?

Actually, Donald Trump is threatening to do that right now. Still agenda based, but I think we can all happily put an asterisk next to Donald as a total troll. But, other than Trump, would you not call it hypocrisy if a lawsuit were to be constructed over this, coming from the more "encompassing" progressive side?
OK, but here's the issue with the way you want it, vs the way I would like to see it happen:

In your scenario, Cruz gets elected and we don't deal with this situation until after he's in office.

What happens if the Supreme Court determines that he was, in fact, ineligible? Are you content with having his running mate become president instead?

Ted Cruz should have made sure that Ted Cruz could be elected president years ago. Not left it up for debate until the last possible minute.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 12:20 AM   #458
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
OK, but here's the issue with the way you want it, vs the way I would like to see it happen:

In your scenario, Cruz gets elected and we don't deal with this situation until after he's in office.

What happens if the Supreme Court determines that he was, in fact, ineligible? Are you content with having his running mate become president instead?

Ted Cruz should have made sure that Ted Cruz could be elected president years ago. Not left it up for debate until the last possible minute.

Everyone who drank before prohibition was enacted... were they in retrospect to be considered against the law of the land? I don't think so. A ruling would have to be (logically) chronological. It shouldn't be a nullification, if the law never existed. So far as I'm concerned (I say it this way because I'm not sure of the technicality), eligibility should concern one's ability to run. Once he's in, he's in. And whatever laws you lay down defining a naturalized citizen would have to be forward in time, only.

I disagree that it's Ted Cruz's responsibility.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 12:42 AM   #459
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post

Ted Cruz should have made sure that Ted Cruz could be elected president years ago. Not left it up for debate until the last possible minute.

As was pointed out earlier, Cruz had no legal mechanism to "make sure" of this. The Supreme Court could only issue that sort of ruling if Cruz were at immediate risk of the government taking action against him, if I remember correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 01:41 AM   #460
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:33 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.
No assholes that don't meet the constitutional requirements should not run. Or amend the condtitution.

Being am American citizen is not the requirement or the only requirement.

Someone natural born on the land that lived abroad may not meet the requirements.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 01:54 AM   #461
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Who the fuck is Ted Cruz??
No such person.
Show me the birth certificate!
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 02:32 AM   #462
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
I've been thinking about it for three hours and I still can't wrap my head around it. It is genuinely horrific.
There is an explanation from him
But nah, don't bother
He seems to be in better spirits lately
With W in tow, his events are drawing a bit, no need to tell them when to clap
but I think he will come in 4th this week end and W may not want to tarnish his image much longer
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 02:39 AM   #463
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Ahahaha is that Jebbers trying to look hard? He's such a damn disappointment. He's like when U2 started working with wil.i.am.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 07:56 AM   #464
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 06:33 PM
All Americans should be worried that if Cruz becomes POTUS he will sell the entire country to Canada for 1 CAD.

Actually, that would be a pretty good deal since they'll mostly be purchasing tonnes of debt.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-17-2016, 08:45 AM   #465
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,337
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Everyone who drank before prohibition was enacted... were they in retrospect to be considered against the law of the land? I don't think so. A ruling would have to be (logically) chronological. It shouldn't be a nullification, if the law never existed. So far as I'm concerned (I say it this way because I'm not sure of the technicality), eligibility should concern one's ability to run. Once he's in, he's in. And whatever laws you lay down defining a naturalized citizen would have to be forward in time, only.
.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

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 12:33 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