American Politics

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I was under the impression that one had to be born in the 50 states to be president, thus disqualifying my three kids (Americans [so far] all born in Japan).

[hym 358]

One simply has to be a natural born citizen. The problem is that the Constitution does not define what that is.

[Sabretooth78 808]

No surprise that Cruz has thrown his hat in the ring.  The perfect embodiment of the "establishment" astroturf t-p candidate.  The fact that he has an "ethnic" sounding name (to most Americans) is gravy since it can be used to pander to the Latino vote.  Apparently they think people are swayed by names without substance; honestly, they're probably correct.  For once.

 

The whole process with these party committees is so predictable.  I don't think we're to the point in the process yet where they've determined who they want and will move hell and high water to ensure that comes the case (see also Willard Mittens Romney), however I do think Bush III appears to be the golden child at the moment.  Question is, will that survive the soap opera to come?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@NMUSpidey:  Apparently if there is a whiff of American citizenship, all you have to do is renounce all others.  One of your kids might become the first "nisei" President.  {I use the term "nisei" because I can't think of any other.  I know it is not the right term, since your kids were born in Japan.}

[Meg 368]

One simply has to be a natural born citizen. The problem is that the Constitution does not define what that is.

 

It would be helpful if it did.  Unfortunately, it is often defined as whatever is convenient at the time.

 

One might think that there are three categories:  Natural born, naturalized, and non-citizen.  But that still leaves questions.

 

Children of US serviceman who are born overseas usually carry dual citizenship:  American and whatever country they were born in.  Children of the serviceman's wife, that is.  If the children have a local mother, they are often on their own, which is another shameful chapter in the country's history.  (See children of the dust.)

 

Which lead some to define it as children of an American mother wherever she happens to be.  That definition worked for some people until 8 years ago.

 

As much as I dislike him, Ted Cruz was born with dual citizenship under the laws that existed at the time (and still do exist as far as I know).     Sounds "natural born" to me.  He is a citizen without having to go through the naturalization process.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

For all that I have a strong dislike to some of his policies, it wasn't Ted Cruz' fault that dad was working the Canadian oil patch when he was born.  Since he was raised in southern baptist Texas, I am not surprised at some of his red neck attitudes, and they pretty much coincide with some of the attitudes of his birth province.  However, since he has renounced his Canadian citizenship, we won't miss him.

 

I think anyone who can claim 'civis Amercanensis sum' should be able to run for any office.  If I were able to vote in the upcoming election, however, I wouldn't vote for him for Animal Control Specialist.

 

We have any number of immigrant Parliamentarians and have had two (female) immigrant Governor's General in the recent past.  Both of these ladies were highly successful and remain so.  While the office is mostly ceremonial, the GG is C-in-C of Canadian Forces, represents the Queen, and signs bills into law.  Lifts a lot of the diplomatic fooferaw off the Prime Minister and eases the load so he has more time to govern. 

 

A Constitutional Monarchy really simplifies things.  The GG is Head of State.  The PM is Head of Government (cabinet).  Splitting this load isn't a bad idea, and POTUS would be smart to make adroit use of his VP to unload some of the ceremonial stuff as much as possible.  Receiving diplomatic credentials would be a thing, for example.

[Larks2242 251]

Ted Cruz is unelectable. He is to many non-Tea Party individuals what Hillary Clinton is to many non-Democrats: the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with this country.

 

Seem to have forgotten if it wan't for the foil of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum would be one election from the whitehouse, Seeing as he had more rally behind him from the right then Romney it isn't out of reach that he could have become president.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

@NMUSpidey:  Apparently if there is a whiff of American citizenship, all you have to do is renounce all others.  One of your kids might become the first "nisei" President.  {I use the term "nisei" because I can't think of any other.  I know it is not the right term, since your kids were born in Japan.}

 

'Nihon umare' would probably be more appropriate.  Nisei is more like 'made in Japan,' whereas 'Nihon umare' is 'born in Japan.'  I take no offense, though, Japanese is tough.

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

Ted Cruz is unelectable. He is to many non-Tea Party individuals what Hillary Clinton is to many non-Democrats: the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with this country.

 

Seem to have forgotten if it wan't for the foil of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum would be one election from the whitehouse, Seeing as he had more rally behind him from the right then Romney it isn't out of reach that he could have become president.

 

 

Rick Santorum is the contemporary definition of unelectable.

 

Mittens was their guy right from the start and sheltered from vetting throughout because they knew a.) he'd lose whilst at least keeping up the appearance of trying (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe he ever polled above Obama; the only republican to do so was Ron Paul) and b.) if he did win he would maintain the status quo; i.e. not rock the boat.  Remember the time he was campaigning behind a podium in front of a "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" banner?  (Emphasis added - as if the US government could ever improve upon a faliure!  We'd end up with something less functional, if anything.)

 

I was reading bits and pieces of a WSJ article about Cruz yesterday as it was sitting on the table as I was eating dinner.  I gleaned a few contradictory thoughts from it - one sentence was talking about how the GOP needs to appeal to more than just their base (sound familiar?) and yet later on in the article he was quoted invoking Jerry Falwell.  These idiots have no clue what they're doing (either that or a very good clue) and as a result we'll end up with Hilary; term 5 of the current presidency.

 

This is why that while in the narrow-minded American view of the political spectrum I would appear to lean right, I think I dislike republicans more than democrats.  democrats are all full of sh-- but always have been and don't try to hide from it.  You know what you're getting; there's almost a perverse honesty to it.  Case in point, good old Bill Jeff, the 42nd president.  The republicans, on the other hand, preach a good game but when push comes to shove they completely abdicate their stated position and aid the democrats.  Their subversion of the tea party movement (which was once admirable) is another entrant into their disgusting recent history.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

@NMUSpidey:  Apparently if there is a whiff of American citizenship, all you have to do is renounce all others.  One of your kids might become the first "nisei" President.  {I use the term "nisei" because I can't think of any other.  I know it is not the right term, since your kids were born in Japan.}

 

'Nihon umare' would probably be more appropriate.  Nisei is more like 'made in Japan,' whereas 'Nihon umare' is 'born in Japan.'  I take no offense, though, Japanese is tough.

 

I took one hard look at Nihon-go a few years ago and gave up.

 

My son, on the other hand, has achieved a black belt in shorin-ryu karate and actually took one year of Nihon-go at the University of Western Ontario but gave it up because it was interfering with the rest of his courses.  I've no idea whether he ever achieved any fluency or not.

[Meg 368]

 

I was reading bits and pieces of a WSJ article about Cruz yesterday as it was sitting on the table as I was eating dinner.  I gleaned a few contradictory thoughts from it - one sentence was talking about how the GOP needs to appeal to more than just their base (sound familiar?) and yet later on in the article he was quoted invoking Jerry Falwell.  These idiots have no clue what they're doing (either that or a very good clue) and as a result we'll end up with Hilary; term 5 of the current presidency.

 

 

 

 

And that, unfortunately, seems like the most likely scenario.

 

In order to win the White House, you have to have a clue.    I was appalled when I saw how utterly baffled some people were when Mitt Romney lost.   They thought it would be a slam dunk.   I knew he lost it when he was caught on camera declaring it was not his job to worry about 47% of the country.  [link]

 

Think about that.  He believes 47% of the country are not his problem then people can't figure out why he didn't win a national election.   How clueless can people be?

[aparrot7 82]

Clinton still leads the polls, by alot. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

She will run wire-to-wire, despite the email scandal and you can bet there are others.  It'll be a replay of 2012 but with a different cast (though I'm sure Sarah Palin will be injected into it by the media again.  See also 2008.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And that, unfortunately, seems like the most likely scenario.

 

In order to win the White House, you have to have a clue.    I was appalled when I saw how utterly baffled some people were when Mitt Romney lost.   They thought it would be a slam dunk.   I knew he lost it when he was caught on camera declaring it was not his job to worry about 47% of the country.  [link]

 

Think about that.  He believes 47% of the country are not his problem then people can't figure out why he didn't win a national election.   How clueless can people be?

 

Because those people were conservatives and conservatives are very good at lying to themselves. They live in this giant echoing chamber with Fox News and other conservative media outlets that consistently tell them exactly what they want to hear. Sadly for them, there generally is a massive difference between what conservatives want to hear, and whats really going on in the world. So when reality hits them in the form of losing the elections, they are surprised, because they have just been told for the past few months by every news source they know that America hates liberals, hates Obama, that Obama is doing a terrible job at everything and that there is no way America is going to vote for another 4 years of Obama. 

 

And from all the things I've heard, that 47% statement wasn't even the dumbest thing he said. I mean, technically he is right. In any given election, 47% will vote one way or the other, and trying to appeal to them is pointless because they will vote for the other guy no matter what. What you need to do is appeal to the 6% that is undecided or willing to change their mind. That was basically what his argument came down to. The real problem there, and what was consistently his problem, was not what he said but the way he said it. Mitt Romney is incredibly tone deaf. Like when he just wants to bet 10.000 dollars on something, when most of his electorate is located in the poorest states of the US. People who barely make 10.000 dollars in a year. Every time that guy opened his mouth he said something that made people cringe because it was just sooooo out of touch with the average American. I mean, Mitt Romney is literally the 1% personified, and he is living proof of what the wealth gap has done to people. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

I don't think party affiliation is a variable in the equation of people who can't think for themselves.  I call it socialized thought.  I know of many "liberals" (I hate using that word in that context because that's not what it means) who fall victim to the same garbage, are one-issue voters, etc.  I once worked with one who thought New Hampshire was living in the stone ages for not allowing a "straight ticket" option on ballots.  Yes, let's allow you to become even more detached from the process.

 

You're dead on about Mittens, though.  That's why any thinking conservative was throughly uninspired with in at best.  "Meh, Romney."  We thought Bob Dole was out of touch.  Bob Dole probably even thought Bob Dole was out of touch.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I don't think party affiliation is a variable in the equation of people who can't think for themselves.  I call it socialized thought.  I know of many "liberals" (I hate using that word in that context because that's not what it means) who fall victim to the same garbage, are one-issue voters, etc.  I once worked with one who thought New Hampshire was living in the stone ages for not allowing a "straight ticket" option on ballots.  Yes, let's allow you to become even more detached from the process.

 

You're dead on about Mittens, though.  That's why any thinking conservative was throughly uninspired with in at best.  "Meh, Romney."  We thought Bob Dole was out of touch.  Bob Dole probably even thought Bob Dole was out of touch.

Eh, Im not sure. I mean yeah, there are definitely Liberals that live in a bubble. I'm sure plenty of them were thoroughly surprised when Gore and Kerry didnt beat Bush. 

 

At the same time however, a lot of Liberal thinking is not as 'out there' as Conservative thinking. I mean, the democrats are not the party that is filled to the brink with people who pride themselves on a complete lack of scientific understanding (being against windmills and solar panels because we might run out of wind and sun if we do that), or who actively deny established scientific facts (except when we are talking about the importance of vaccination, in which case Liberals can be as stupid as Conservatives). But that might actually be the problem of Liberals, the more 'extreme' Liberals get extremely smug about how they accept evolution or global warming and how that makes them better people. The Brian Griffin types of Liberal for those who know their Family Guy  

[Duke87 1,070]

Groupthink is not specific to any flavor of politics. Different groups just get hung up on different things, on account of having different priorities or simply different perspectives.

 

The other thing I've come to find fascinating is that, very often, when someone might be accused of being stuck in a bubble over something, they are not wrong about most or even any of the basic facts involved. They just assign different importance to different facts, and therefore come to a different conclusion. Take, for example, the hard conservative line on contraception and abortion, that it's evil because it enables reckless and irresponsible behavior. They are absolutely right about this much: being able to have sex without worrying about pregnancy and STDs makes it possible to have flings and mistresses without being terribly concerned about the consequences of doing so. And that is perhaps a significant downside to it. But it's also now possible for people to achieve greater financial status and life happiness by not being burdened with children they don't want and/or can't afford.

 

Again, no one disagrees on the basic fact here: contraception allows people to have sex without consequences to their political health, and therefore allows them to do so more freely rather than sticking to the traditional norms. All conservatives and liberals disagree on is whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. So it is ultimately just a question of opinion.

 

This is why I caution against saying "such and such people live in a bubble". Dismissing someone's opinion as invalid is not a good way to have a productive discussion about anything, and it's best to remember that all walls have two sides. Who is more ignorant, the person stuck inside the bubble, or the person stuck outside of it?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

This is why I caution against saying "such and such people live in a bubble". Dismissing someone's opinion as invalid is not a good way to have a productive discussion about anything, and it's best to remember that all walls have two sides. Who is more ignorant, the person stuck inside the bubble, or the person stuck outside of it?

 

Well that's an easy question, the person stuck in the bubble because he cut himself off from the rest of the world. I've always equated living in a bubble with la-la land, also I've got to remember that all walls have two sides as we question every iota of reality.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And here I thought la-la land was centred on Vancouver.

 

And yes, it is easy for the internationally uninterested American citizen, which I suspect is most of them, to be caught up in local politics as easily as they are caught up in baseball statistics, and both have about the same amount of meaning.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The other thing I've come to find fascinating is that, very often, when someone might be accused of being stuck in a bubble over something, they are not wrong about most or even any of the basic facts involved. They just assign different importance to different facts, and therefore come to a different conclusion. Take, for example, the hard conservative line on contraception and abortion, that it's evil because it enables reckless and irresponsible behavior. They are absolutely right about this much: being able to have sex without worrying about pregnancy and STDs makes it possible to have flings and mistresses without being terribly concerned about the consequences of doing so. And that is perhaps a significant downside to it. But it's also now possible for people to achieve greater financial status and life happiness by not being burdened with children they don't want and/or can't afford.

 

Again, no one disagrees on the basic fact here: contraception allows people to have sex without consequences to their political health, and therefore allows them to do so more freely rather than sticking to the traditional norms. All conservatives and liberals disagree on is whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. So it is ultimately just a question of opinion.

Eh, the conservative stance on abortion, anti conception and reproductive health in general is riddled with double standards, outright lies or a complete misunderstanding of the facts. I mean, we got conservatives who openly claim that women can somehow shut their lady parts down in case of rape, we have conservatives that outright lie about the dangers of getting an abortion or using the pill, with made up statistics about increased chance of all kinds of diseases. Then there is the huge double standard a lot of these conservatives have since most of their qualms are about abortion and access for women to contraception, while they are completely okay with men's access to contraception or the things that improve mens reproductive health (condoms, penis pumps and viagra). And yes, those conservatives do pretend to be afraid of increased chances of STD's spread, which is why they always promote abstention only sex ed, which is proven to increase the spread of STD's and teen pregnancies. 

 

The only fact they agree on is that better reproductive health measures for women leads to an increased social and economic position of women. And they are against that. Which is why they are so often accused of waging a war against women. Okay, technically that is having a different opinion on whether a better socio-economic position for women is a good thing for society or not, but in order to justify their position without openly coming out for the fact that they are really just misogynists they tell lie after lie to the public. And even here you can argue that its objectively better for society if women have solid and strong socio-economic position, given that it leads to a better and stronger economy, less crime, etc. For example, the decline in crime rates (which went against all expert predictions) is attributed to Roe vs Wade. 

 

 

Honestly the only debate I can think of where conservatives and liberals simply have a different reading of the facts is the role of government in the economy. Less government and more free market or more government and a regulated free market. 

[hym 358]

For example, the decline in crime rates (which went against all expert predictions) is attributed to Roe vs Wade. 

 

It's also attributed to Baby Boomers simply getting jobs and not having random free time to engage in various illegal activities anymore.  No one actually knows what factor(s) caused the drop.

[Larks2242 251]

Big news today! Minority leader Harry Reid will not seek relection.

 

I wonder who will take his place?

 

Hopefully not Dick Durbin or Charles Schumer, If one of them gets this this could be a nightmare. 

 

One can hope someone like Tom Carper or Joe Manchan takes his place.

[Meg 368]

 For example, the decline in crime rates (which went against all expert predictions) is attributed to Roe vs Wade. 

 

 

When I was in high school civics class, which was before Roe vs Wade, we studied the crime rate.   It was steadily rising with no end in sight.   Various theories were discussed.    The closest coorelation seen was related to type of government.   More totalitarian countries had less crime.

 

 

 

It's also attributed to Baby Boomers simply getting jobs and not having random free time to engage in various illegal activities anymore.  No one actually knows what factor(s) caused the drop.

 

 

So the theory is that Baby Boomers grew up?    We rarely get accused of that.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's also attributed to Baby Boomers simply getting jobs and not having random free time to engage in various illegal activities anymore.  No one actually knows what factor(s) caused the drop.

 

Pretty sure Baby Boomers getting a job in the mid 90's had nothing to do with a drop in crime rates. I mean, they would have been around 40-50 already at that point, so most of them were probably already employed. 

 

 

When I was in high school civics class, which was before Roe vs Wade, we studied the crime rate.   It was steadily rising with no end in sight.   Various theories were discussed.    The closest coorelation seen was related to type of government.   More totalitarian countries had less crime.

 

Sure, if you are studying crime rates between countries. 

 

In any case, I'm talking about the mid 90's here. Before that we had a steady increase in crime, and suddenly it dropped hard. The explanation is abortion. Roe vs Wade happened in 1973, and 20 years later we see a crime drop. 20 is also the age of when a lot of people commit crime, and access to abortion is most useful for women in poor socioeconomic positions, who are the most likely to raise a child they can't care for and who is most at risk to become a criminal. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

Big news today! Minority leader Harry Reid will not seek relection.

 

I wonder who will take his place?

 

Hopefully not Dick Durbin or Charles Schumer, If one of them gets this this could be a nightmare. 

 

One can hope someone like Tom Carper or Joe Manchan takes his place.

Good riddance.  May the door knock him unconscious on the way out.

 

Of course we'll probably just end up with someone worse, like Chuck U "New York State ends at the East River" Schumer.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

 

It's also attributed to Baby Boomers simply getting jobs and not having random free time to engage in various illegal activities anymore.  No one actually knows what factor(s) caused the drop.

 

Pretty sure Baby Boomers getting a job in the mid 90's had nothing to do with a drop in crime rates. I mean, they would have been around 40-50 already at that point, so most of them were probably already employed. 

 

 

When I was in high school civics class, which was before Roe vs Wade, we studied the crime rate.   It was steadily rising with no end in sight.   Various theories were discussed.    The closest coorelation seen was related to type of government.   More totalitarian countries had less crime.

 

Sure, if you are studying crime rates between countries. 

 

In any case, I'm talking about the mid 90's here. Before that we had a steady increase in crime, and suddenly it dropped hard. The explanation is abortion. Roe vs Wade happened in 1973, and 20 years later we see a crime drop. 20 is also the age of when a lot of people commit crime, and access to abortion is most useful for women in poor socioeconomic positions, who are the most likely to raise a child they can't care for and who is most at risk to become a criminal. 

 

The main reason that crime went down in the 1990s was because the police force became more effective then. "Hot spot," "broken window," "violence interrupters," "after school activities," "community focus," and a bunch of other buzz words explain the change in policing in the 1990s. I can provide sources from Nature publications but you would most likely need a subscription to see the full article in even the general interest magazine articles (such as Scientific American).

 

--Ocram

[hym 358]

Pretty sure Baby Boomers getting a job in the mid 90's had nothing to do with a drop in crime rates. I mean, they would have been around 40-50 already at that point, so most of them were probably already employed. 

 

By the 1990s, some of the Baby Boomers wouldn't even have been 30 yet.

 

The point is that no one actually has a definitive answer.  There are theories with varying degrees of credibility and acceptance, but no definitive explanations as to what factor(s) are responsible.  As a semi-related article indicates, even today we are not certain what actually caused crime to decline.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Your east river type should have a sing along: The Erie Canal.

 

Without that connection, New York would have a serious problem.  Moves stuff between Buffalo (Great Lakes) to Albany (Hudson River).

[Duke87 1,070]

No major shift ever has only one cause. Of course it's a bunch of things.

 

I'd even speculate that decreases in crime might be helped along simply by advances in technology providing alternative forms of entertainment. As the old saying goes, "idle time is the devil's playground". A lot of youth cause mischief simply because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Unchecked this can lead to increasingly destructive and criminal forms of bad behavior.

 

Pre-war, young men and women were kept plenty occupied by having to work in some form in order to contribute to their households. Post-war, increasing income for adults meant that for teenagers and young adults to be employed became less vital. The proliferation of devices like dishwashers and washing machines meant there was less work they needed to do around the house. So the teenagers and young adults of America started to find themselves with a greater abundance of free time than previous generations did, but a relative lack of activities with which to fill it. So people got bored and then got into graffiti, drugs, etc.

 

Then in the 1980s, we started to see things like cable TV, computers, video game consoles, and VCRs. By the 1990s these devices had proliferated widely enough that large numbers of America's youth had plenty of non-destructive means of occupying themselves. Why go kick your neighbor's lawn gnomes over when you can shoot up bad guys in Wolfenstein or Doom? Why go and shoplift cigarettes when you can watch a movie anytime without spending any money?

 

This is why so much crime is committed by young people who grow up in poverty - it's committed by the people who are least able to afford better forms of entertainment.

 

Others who have come to the same conclusion have already started things like free after school basketball programs, and will outright say "we keep kids out of trouble by keeping them off the street and keeping them busy while teaching them teamwork and sportsmanship, and giving them friends and role models". Programs like this definitely have a meaningfully positive impact on the people who participate in them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Why do we put people like that in office?

Indifference mostly. State elections have notoriously low voter turn out.