2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[cobl04]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

For fucks sake the entire purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the rule of law.

 

[Axver]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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]

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?

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[digitize]

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

 

[deep]

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]

Who the fuck is Ted Cruz??
No such person.
Show me the birth certificate!

 

[deep]

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

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[Salome]

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.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.
.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Use your words.

 

[gump]

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.

Enough with these revolutionary ideas, Axver.

 

[Oregoropa]

Who the fuck is Ted Cruz??
No such person.
Show me the birth certificate!

There is a person named Rafael Eduardo Cruz. He could run against William Jefferson Blythe IV's wife. But first he must get by John Ellis Bush.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Wait a minute... So Jeb Bush is short for John Ellis Bush Bush?

Oh, Jeb.

 

[corianderstem]

[TWEET]699706718419345408[/TWEET]

The only correct response to this tweet and caption is, of course, FUCK YEAH.






Or also actual vomit. That's an appropriate response, too.

 

[DaveC]

Wait a minute... So Jeb Bush is short for John Ellis Bush Bush?

Oh, Jeb.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Jeb Bush Touring Convention Hall On Segway, 'P' In President Has Fallen Off Job Tag

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Guns are for pussies. My weapon of choice is a machete or other type of blade in which i can inflict maximum pain for a slow death. Unless i am in a hurry, then i just go medieval on that ass.

 

[Bluer White]

Guns are for pussies. My weapon of choice is a machete or other type of blade in which i can inflict maximum pain for a slow death. Unless i am in a hurry, then i just go medieval on that ass.

A dog collar is kinda old school too. Especially if it has that zapper thing.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Polling update. Sanders trails Clinton nationally by ten points according to USA Today/Suffolk and two points according to Quinnipiac.

More polls where Sanders outperforms Clinton nationally against Republicans...some media outlets making a big deal over this even though it's something that's been going on for months now.

Trump has about a 15-20 point lead over Rubio/Cruz nationally...really starting to look like he's going to run away with this thing unless Republicans can quickly coalesce behind one of those two alternative candidates.

Sanders trails Clinton by 1 point in the most recent Nevada poll and is tied with her in the one from a few days ago. Likely going to win that caucus.

Sanders continues to inch up against Clinton in South Carolina...moves up about a point every couple days, currently hovering at an 18 point deficit after trailing by 19 and 20 over the past few days in similar polls. No telling how much a Nevada win could help there.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

A dog collar is kinda old school too. Especially if it has that zapper thing.

Mr Slave likes his

 

[Oregoropa]

More interesting poll news

Trump has about a 15-20 point lead over Rubio/Cruz nationally...really starting to look like he's going to run away with this thing unless Republicans can quickly coalesce behind one of those two alternative candidates.
.

If it were 'Trump v Rubio' or 'Trump v Cruz', it would probably very tight. The 3-way race favors Trump.

3 most recent National GOP nomination polls

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/14 - 2/16 Trump - 26 Cruz - 28 Rubio -17 Cruz +2

Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 Trump - 39 Cruz - 18 Rubio - 19 Trump +20

USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 Trump - 35 Cruz- 20 Rubio - 17 Trump +15


From The NBC/ Wall St. Jrnl

The results from the poll — conducted after Trump's victory in New Hampshire and Saturday's GOP debate in South Carolina — are a significant reversal from last month, when Trump held a 13-point lead over Cruz, 33 percent to 20 percent.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his firm Hart Research Associates, says Trump's drop could signal being "right on top of a shift in the campaign."

"When you see a number this different, it means you might be right on top of a shift in the campaign. What you don't know yet is if the change is going to take place or if it is a momentary 'pause' before the numbers snap back into place," he said.

McInturff added, "So, one poll post-Saturday debate can only reflect there may have been a 'pause' as Republican voters take another look at Trump. This happened earlier this summer and he bounced back stronger. We will have to wait this time and see what voters decide."

This poll comes after other surveys -- both nationally and in South Carolina, the site of Saturday's next Republican contest -- show Trump with a commanding lead. But some of those weren't conducted entirely after the last debate like the NBC/WSJ poll.

Another possible explanation for Trump's decline in the new NBC/WSJ poll is an increase in "very conservative" Republican voters from January's sample.

If the current poll is re-weighted to reflect the ideological composition from last month, the GOP horserace numbers are: Trump 26 percent, Cruz 25 percent, Rubio 18 percent and Kasich 13 percent — so Trump is ahead by one point, but still down from January.

In addition to Trump's decline in the GOP race, the new NBC/WSJ poll shows a nine-point drop in the percentage of GOP primary voters who can see themselves supporting the real-estate mogul — from 65 percent in January to 56 percent now.

The highest candidate scores on this scale: Rubio (70 percent can see themselves supporting him), Cruz (65 percent), Carson (62 percent), Trump (56 percent), Kasich (49 percent) and Bush (46 percent).

And in hypothetical one-on-one match ups, Trump trails both Cruz (56 percent to 40 percent) and Rubio (57 percent to 41 percent). In January, Trump was ahead of Rubio (by seven points) but behind Cruz (by eight points).

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Feb. 14-16 of 800 registered voters (which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points) and 400 GOP primary voters (which has a margin of error of plus-minus 4.9 percentage points).

While this may spell trouble ahead for Trump in the primary, he got better numbers in head to head match-ups vs Clinton/Sanders from USA Today/Suffolk. ( The most recent RCP recognized poll of 1000 LV)

Trump 45 Clinton 43 (December's USA Today had Clinton up 4)

Trump 44 Sanders 43

The latest averaged (5) polls on RCP still favor Clinton +3.4 and Sanders +7 in head to head versus Trump.

 

[Oregoropa]

A dog collar is kinda old school too. Especially if it has that zapper thing.

I see what you did there.



At least she shows some humor and is having fun. That's a big criticism of her on the stump.

 

[anitram]

Wait a minute... So Jeb Bush is short for John Ellis Bush Bush?

Oh, Jeb.

There is no Jeb Bush.

Just "Jeb!"

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Jebbers