2016 Presidential Race

[Il Duce]

@lindy - definitely! The UK debates go too long and are a little dry for me but 90% of the US ones I really enjoy. I think that moderator does a great job. I also really like the podcast 'Backstory.' Not really much controversy/argument there but some really cool little-known (or at least little known to me) American history.

 

[pardus]

Oh I understand the realities. I just don't think they are that bad.

Cool, and agreed within reason.

Which freedoms do you have here that weren't afforded in Christchurch?

I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.
There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.

 

[Dienekes]

Where does the Constitution elaborate this "right" for the President's nominee to fairly evaluated by the Senate? How is a potential Senate delay on confirmation hearings an "insult"? Perhaps you should read more about the Executive branch and what exactly the head of that branch has sworn to do (prosecution of the law vs enforcement the law) and reconsider said insults.

Please elaborate how a Democrat-controlled Congress could lose it's majority if the electorate is happy/pleased with their performance as a Party?

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

In the bold above, the right to nominate and Congress may vest the nomination if they choose. Essentially, and I take this from the wording, the President could appoint a judge and Congress would only shoot it down if they disagreed which means that they must evaluate the candidate. I say fairly because frankly, decisions made purely with respect to factionalism rather than critical analysis are ruining this country. The Founding Fathers warned of the this, and I consider it an insult not only to the Constitution but also to the people for elected officials to act or vote a certain way because a party tells them to though I guess that would depend on if voters vote by party rather than candidate, but that is a different discussion.


Lack of voting participation or change thereof for the following election because (insert reason here) or gerrymandering are the main two. I know of many of my parents friends that only vote in Presidential elections and only recently decided to vote in Congressional elections because they hate Obama and don't want a Democrat Congress to just go with whatever he says. Terrible example but it is sadly true.

 

[compforce]

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

In the bold above, the right to nominate and Congress may vest the nomination if they choose. Essentially, and I take this from the wording, the President could appoint a judge and Congress would only shoot it down if they disagreed which means that they must evaluate the candidate.

Your argument is correct, but based on a false premise. Read the entire sentence that you bolded a portion of. "Vest" in this instance means to delegate. Reread the same sentence and replace the word vest with delegate. See the difference? They were saying that the President should not have to delegate every appointee all the way down to the smallest, but rather Congress could delegate all of the "inferior" posts to others if Congress so chooses. It also gives Congress the right to create a law or resolution stating that for "inferior" posts they, Congress, can give that power to the President without the requirement for advise and consent, eliminating the requirement for review.

The part that supports your statement is "advise and consent" which means that the President shouldn't just go nominating someone, they should collaborate with the Judiciary Comittees in the House and Senate to get their advice. Then the President should nominate the consensus choice whom congress would "consent to" by a ratification vote.

 

[policemedic]

Was it on a pinball table per chance?

Kinky.

 

[Dienekes]

Your argument is correct, but based on a false premise. Read the entire sentence that you bolded a portion of. "Vest" in this instance means to delegate. Reread the same sentence and replace the word vest with delegate. See the difference? They were saying that the President should not have to delegate every appointee all the way down to the smallest, but rather Congress could delegate all of the "inferior" posts to others if Congress so chooses. It also gives Congress the right to create a law or resolution stating that for "inferior" posts they, Congress, can give that power to the President without the requirement for advise and consent, eliminating the requirement for review.

The part that supports your statement is "advise and consent" which means that the President shouldn't just go nominating someone, they should collaborate with the Judiciary Comittees in the House and Senate to get their advice. Then the President should nominate the consensus choice whom congress would "consent to" by a ratification vote.

I agree, I took vest to mean vetting without looking further into it. You are right on the other as well, I also saw the advise and consent of the Senate portion, but I took it at first purely with respect to consent. I suppose then if Congress chooses to withdraw their right to advise on the nomination, the POTUS could nominate someone and force the Senate to choose whether or not to consent which would be an effective political move for the Democrats for the election in November as they could throw the Republican Party in a bad light saying that they refuse to work with POTUS.

 

[Florida173]

Surprise: Trump Falls Behind Cruz in National NBC/WSJ Poll
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has fallen behind Ted Cruz in the national GOP horserace, according to a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

In the poll, Cruz is the first choice of 28 percent of Republican primary voters, while Trump gets 26 percent. They're followed by Marco Rubio at 17 percent, John Kasich at 11 percent, Ben Carson at 10 percent and Jeb Bush at 4 percent.

So of course the margin of error is between 3.5 and 4.9 which is a bit on the high side, but having looked back at every NBC/WSJ Poll in the past, they seem to be consistently polling Trump low or some of the other candidates higher. Now of course during this same time period you have two other polls; Quininipiac University at a +20 for Trump and USA Today/Suffolk at +15 for Trump.

Point being that it was interesting hearing the talking heads on the way home from work today discuss and highlight the NBC/WSJ poll as a clear sign of the GOP changing abruptly.

 

[Brill]

@Dienekes the key words in all that were "shall" (indicating an obligation) and "may" (indicating a possibility or probability). The President is obligated to nominate whereas the Senate may confirm. The reality is, in my opinion, is the law is written as such so the occupant of 1600 Pen Ave f'ing talks to various Senators to compromise!!! Let's see Obama try to EO his way through this one (I expect a recess appointment honestly).

I do agree that if the Republicans openly refuse, that may cost them some votes in November but I think the FEAR of Hillary or Bernie taking over the White House would overcome any obstructionist talk.

The electorate appears (based on Iowa and New Hampshire) to be frustrated with DC politics in the current state.

 

[DA SWO]

I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.
There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.

Which explains our Freedom to Assemble/Protest Peacefully rights.

 

[SpitfireV]

I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.
There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.

OK, I can see where you've got this and unfortunately for you it's almost all wrong

Now, the gathering thing is dependent on a very particular set of circumstances. I think this is the section you're thinking about:

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 86 Unlawful assembly – New Zealand Legislation

The same goes for the gang thing. There's a high threshold to prove an offence against this section and I'm not totally sure it's been used effectively before. I've got a hazy bell going off saying that the police tried with some patched members but it didn't work. The fact that you're a gang member on arrest doesn't make a lot of difference re sentencing.

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 98A Participation in organised criminal group – New Zealand Legislation

Interestingly I didn't realise there was a subsection that says that your mates can defend the property.

When did that happen with your mate? Offensive behaviour is, fortunately and unfortunately, a very very wide charge and can cover almost anything. Was your mate being a knob at the time by chance? I only ask to clarify.

Which explains our Freedom to Assemble/Protest Peacefully rights.

Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.

 

[DA SWO]

Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.

We ca do it without being labeled as gang members, which is my point.

 

[SpitfireV]

So can we. Which is why yours was one hell of an assumption.

 

[TLDR20]

I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives.

Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.

 

[pardus]

OK, I can see where you've got this and unfortunately for you it's almost all wrong

Now, the gathering thing is dependent on a very particular set of circumstances. I think this is the section you're thinking about:

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 86 Unlawful assembly – New Zealand Legislation

The same goes for the gang thing. There's a high threshold to prove an offence against this section and I'm not totally sure it's been used effectively before. I've got a hazy bell going off saying that the police tried with some patched members but it didn't work. The fact that you're a gang member on arrest doesn't make a lot of difference re sentencing.

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 98A Participation in organised criminal group – New Zealand Legislation

Interestingly I didn't realise there was a subsection that says that your mates can defend the property.

When did that happen with your mate? Offensive behaviour is, fortunately and unfortunately, a very very wide charge and can cover almost anything. Was your mate being a knob at the time by chance? I only ask to clarify.

Interesting. Then I stand humbly corrected.

His arrest would have been in the early-mid 90's I suppose. He was a patched member or a prospect at the time, so being a knob, yup.

 

[Florida173]

I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives.

Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.

That's because they don't know better. For the most part, the best places are the least diverse. I feel I've spent a lot of time in places around the world to have a pretty objective view of the world, and there is absolutely no better place to live than the United States.

 

[TLDR20]

That's because they don't know better. For the most part, the best places are the least diverse. I feel I've spent a lot of time in places around the world to have a pretty objective view of the world, and there is absolutely no better place to live than the United States.

I agree. Because we know better. But acting like there isn't freedom elsewhere is stupid.

 

[DA SWO]

Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.

So can we. Which is why yours was one hell of an assumption.

I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives.

Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.

Actually, all I did was point out some of the reasoning behind the first 10 Amendments, I never said we were the only country with "freedom" or that arrest was automatic.
Pardus was stating that it was possible to get arrested if you had more than 3 people gathering (and they were labled as gang members), if that law doesn't exist, then state so; if it does exist then don't get butt hurt when I state that freedom of peaceful assembly (even for criminals) is written into our constitution.
@TLDR20 If you think I was saying we are the only country with freedom then you have assumed wrongly that was the point I was making. As far as Europe goes, awesome, I'd still rather live here then there.

 

[SpitfireV]

You made an assumption based on a post that said itself was hazy on if the details were correct.

You'll notice that I had addressed the issue and still you carried on with the assumption.

I might suggest we leave this here; it is a silly and petty thing for either of us to continue.

 

[compforce]

People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives...

...most of which is spent waiting in line for health care, subsidies and food

(this is a joke, kinda)

 

[TLDR20]

Actually, all I did was point out some of the reasoning behind the first 10 Amendments, I never said we were the only country with "freedom" or that arrest was automatic.
Pardus was stating that it was possible to get arrested if you had more than 3 people gathering (and they were labled as gang members), if that law doesn't exist, then state so; if it does exist then don't get butt hurt when I state that freedom of peaceful assembly (even for criminals) is written into our constitution.
@TLDR20 If you think I was saying we are the only country with freedom then you have assumed wrongly that was the point I was making. As far as Europe goes, awesome, I'd still rather live here then there.

Did I say you said that?