2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
the political calculus i'm seeing is that Obama will choose someone hugely sympathetic to the Democratic base. so when the GOP lights itself on fire to oppose the nominee, that will spark the needed outrage to drive critical demographics to the polls and increase electoral turnout which should then all but guarantee a D victory in November and cement O's forever reputation.
It's really interesting. It's actually almost like the best thing for the GOP to do would be to allow Obama's nominee to get through. It would continue to fuel the GOP base's "Obama gets everything he wants and we just lay down for it" paranoia, it would leave Dems satisfied and possibly even less interested in the election than before.
 
It's really interesting. It's actually almost like the best thing for the GOP to do would be to allow Obama's nominee to get through. It would continue to fuel the GOP base's "Obama gets everything he wants and we just lay down for it" paranoia, it would leave Dems satisfied and possibly even less interested in the election than before.


I think it all comes down to the parties chancing if they'll win the presidency. If Democrats think they'll lose, best try to get Srinivasan through and pull the court slightly to the left. If they think they'll win, best appoint a liberal fantasy, let her be rejected by the Senate, and re-appoint her in a year. If Republicans think they'll win, best block the nominee and appoint Scalia v2.0 in a year. If they think they'll lose and Obama is kind enough to appoint Srinivasan (which relies on him also thinking that the Democrats will likely lose), then better approve Srinivasan to avoid Scalia from being replaced by RBG v2.0. It's a bit of game theory.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
If they think they'll win, best appoint a liberal fantasy, let her be rejected by the Senate, and re-appoint her in a year.




Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia


WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.




.
 
I'm all about Donald Trump suing Ted Cruz because I want to grab a bucket of popcorn and watch them burn together.

Oh, please, can somebody make this happen?

As for the whole birth thing regarding Cruz, ultimately, I personally couldn't care less about that in regards to him. Lord knows there's more than enough stuff to criticize him for as it is, I really don't need a retread of the "birther" debate. It was obnoxious enough when it was targeted at Obama.

That said, however, if Cruz is indeed trying to explain his citizenship issues in really absurd ways, that's pretty hilarious, and like stated elsewhere, it is funny that the birther BS is coming back to haunt the Republicans (ahhhhhhhh, karma...). If the Democrats do plan to exploit that, personally, I'd recommend they just back off and let the GOP flail and show their hypocrisy all on their own. And considering how that party doesn't even like Cruz, if he doesn't last much longer in the race, then it'd ultimately wind up a non-issue in the end anyway.

I do agree, though, that this could lead to a good discussion about the whole "natural-born citizen" law and how exactly it's defined.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy or not, the argument is founded on the same premise. He can't be president because -insert entirely arbitrary reason that doesn't factually change a thing-.

Obama was still born to an American. Even if he WAS born in Kenya, which he obviously wasn't, he'd still have been an American citizen. Would such a technicality have made a damn difference? Think critically.

There's zero reason to believe Ted Cruz's birthplace illegitimizes his ability to be commander and chief. There's also zero concrete language on the grounds of technicality -- just basically a damn bible verse that you get to choose how you want to interpret, written by some fat sweaty old guy in a wig who hasn't showered in dats, two hundred and fifty years ago. Nobody thought it was an issue months ago when he launched his campaign. Why care now? Because it's convenient. Entirely hypocritical, because if this were their candidate...

You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.

My view, broken down:
1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.
2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.
3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.
4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.
 
You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.

My view, broken down:
1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.
2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.
3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.
4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.

Exactly. It's way beyond time that we a) finally clarify what it means and b) look at changing the criteria. It's ridiculous that someone who is a citizen can't be president just because they weren't born here.
 
Back in the 1700s they didn't want a European born of American parents to spend 35 years living in France then come over, become President and then have a pro-French agenda in the realm of foreign policy. That should still hold today. Unfortunately for Cruz the founders never set a time threshold for when it would acceptable to dismiss foreign allegiances. He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago. But that could be challenged or appealed all the way to SCOTUS. I'm no legal scholar but that's my interpretation of Natural Born. Trump is correct in what he said in the pre-Iowa debate that Cruz should have cleaned it up and not have held onto that dual-citizenship so long.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.



My view, broken down:

1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.

2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.

3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.

4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country? Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel. It's totally arbitrary, and suing Cruz is agenda based only. It has no purpose. Nobody is fearful of Ted Cruz being Canadian. The fact that you deny this as being a hypocrisy just shows your bias towards disdain of Ted Cruz and/or US Republicans.
 
Back in the 1700s they didn't want a European born of American parents to spend 35 years living in France then come over, become President and then have a pro-French agenda in the realm of foreign policy. That should still hold today. Unfortunately for Cruz the founders never set a time threshold for when it would acceptable to dismiss foreign allegiances. He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago. But that could be challenged or appealed all the way to SCOTUS. I'm no legal scholar but that's my interpretation of Natural Born. Trump is correct in what he said in the pre-Iowa debate that Cruz should have cleaned it up and not have held onto that dual-citizenship so long.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But that can happen today. A kid born on US soil is raised outside the US is a "Natural born citizen". It's an archaic rule.
 
this whole argument is kinda like when people argued the definition of line (mathematically) as it was never discussed in Euclid's Elements.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country? Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel. It's totally arbitrary, and suing Cruz is agenda based only. It has no purpose. Nobody is fearful of Ted Cruz being Canadian. The fact that you deny this as being a hypocrisy just shows your bias towards disdain of Ted Cruz and/or US Republicans.

I am from this country and you're absolutely wrong on this. There's NO clear answer to this question and it needs to be answered.

The idea that a guy who spent YEARS in another country before stepping foot here, doesn't exactly scream "natural" born citizen. "Naturalized" yes.

But see, this is the beauty of a living breathing constitution. An event like this is how you get clarification on vague or out of date portions.



Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I am from this country and you're absolutely wrong on this. There's NO clear answer to this question and it needs to be answered.

The idea that a guy who spent YEARS in another country before stepping foot here, doesn't exactly scream "natural" born citizen. "Naturalized" yes.

But see, this is the beauty of a living breathing constitution. An event like this is how you get clarification on vague or out of date portions.



Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app


It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.
 
It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.
Well, because you know me so well, I guess I'd be lying to myself to continue believing that I've been fascinated by this topic since I was a little kid and first learned about it.

But I don't really feel like the result of this conversation has any direct impact on you, so I don't care to hear your input on it any longer.
 
It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.

It does need to be clarified so we can stop having these pointless debates about our Presidential candidates. Do I think Cruz is a "natural born citizen", yes, under MY interpretation. However my interpretation isn't the only one. There needs to be an official decision, likely from the judiciary.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country?

I've spent a grand total of six weeks of my life in the US. Who cares? American politics is of global significance and relevance.

(I also have a professional interest in the history of North America - mainly Canada, but I have been employed on US topics before.)

Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

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.

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.

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

I agree.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel.

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.

Your final comment accusing me of bias against Cruz or Republicans in general is barely even worth acknowledging given that I stated the same case would have been valid had Obama actually been born in Kenya. You're seeing bias where there is none.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom