politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump now in clear lead in the betting following another co
Options
Comments
-
Nah. No sympathy for those who work evenings and weekends here. It usually gets the 4 Yorkshiremen response!Cyclefree said:
Thank you for your response. I have just finished work.Wanderer said:FPT re anonymity of defendants etc
I totally agree that secret arrests are deplorable if the state can insist on secrecy. That's police-state-like. What I'm suggesting is that the arrestee can keep it secret if they prefer (again, unless considerations such as public safety override that).Cyclefree said:
There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests.
Agreed. That would mitigate the problem if it happened.Cyclefree said:
The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this)
On reflection, I agree.Cyclefree said:
I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous.
I think it's uniquely horrible if the charge is such that you will never be accepted in society again. I think most of us would agree that, if convicted of an offence like that, the most severe element of the punishment would not be the official sanction of imprisonment but the eternal revulsion of everyone you met. That should not be visited on the innocent.Cyclefree said:
It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.
No roasting from me. We should fund the criminal justice system adequately. But I appreciate that you have work to do, which is no fun on a Friday evening.Cyclefree said:
The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.
But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon
I hope everyone is now feeling duly sympathetic for the hard life I lead.... as I head off for whatever scraps are left at home.
0 -
No, it doesn't make sense. But then if it doesn't make sense now, why will it make sense tomorrow?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
I think there are a lot of people who can't believe the GOP will actually nominate an extremist in Cruz or Rubio, or a maverick in Trump, and that Bush is the next best alternative (which he might be on that line of thinking). Alternatively, they give credence to the Birther arguments.
All the same, I think there'll be some support for / belief in Bush as a convention-brokered candidate right through until it doesn't happen. Only then will he hit the 1000.0 -
It was also speculated that George W Bush had some sort of neurological problem, based mainly on changed speech patterns between his governorship and presidency, iirc (which I might not: it's been a long time).MonikerDiCanio said:
It was said that Ford was so dumb as a result of the numerous concussions he suffered during his gridiron career. Today some say that Hillary has exhibited various symptoms and signs of Post Concussion Syndrome following her heavy fall a few years back.foxinsoxuk said:
He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!rcs1000 said:
I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.ydoethur said:
It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.david_herdson said:He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.
Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.0 -
Been TangoedSpeedy said:Before I sign off here, this is from Google Trends about last night's republican debate.
Top trending questions:
https://www.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_l0pJHVIBAACM1M_en
Trump
5 Why is Donald Trump orange?
And yes, Trump looks orange.0 -
Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrBjLSz5aA
This advert was shown in the autumn in the U.S.:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/Akyq/national-immigration-forum-action-fund-shining-ft-ronald-reagan
Sadly his sunny vision does not gain traction any more.
Apologies in both cases for the syrupy music.0 -
No, although the Democrats did manage 5 straight presidential election wins from 1932 to 1948 and the Republicans 4 straight wins from 1896 to 1908 and 6 straight wins from 1860 to 1880david_herdson said:
If she wins, the GOP will have an even better chance in 2020, not even allowing for Hillary's weakness. No party has had two candidates win back-to-back elections consecutively since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.HYUFD said:
Of course if Hillary wins it will be the first time the Democrats have won 3 or more straight presidential elections since FDR and Truman. The only Republican who has achieved the feat in the past 60 years is George Bush Snr. So if Trump is nominee historically he would have a good chanceSunil_Prasannan said:Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face
0 -
It must be the money and the name, true; but Bush has not been able to capitalise on either. Why should that change now? He could be fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire.DecrepitJohnL said:
The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.Wanderer said:
I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.0 -
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.0 -
OK, I see your point; the scales won't drop from their eyes yet.david_herdson said:
No, it doesn't make sense. But then if it doesn't make sense now, why will it make sense tomorrow?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
I think there are a lot of people who can't believe the GOP will actually nominate an extremist in Cruz or Rubio, or a maverick in Trump, and that Bush is the next best alternative (which he might be on that line of thinking). Alternatively, they give credence to the Birther arguments.
All the same, I think there'll be some support for / belief in Bush as a convention-brokered candidate right through until it doesn't happen. Only then will he hit the 1000.
But I'll sleep OK tonight
0 -
The point is that if it does turn into a war of attrition between the Establishment candidates, Bush is best placed to survive and become the only Establishment candidate. and so the non-Trump option in a two-horse race. I'd agree he has not looked very impressive in the debates but who has? (Aside from Trump.)TheWhiteRabbit said:
It must be the money and the name, true; but Bush has not been able to capitalise on either. Why should that change now? He could be fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire.DecrepitJohnL said:
The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.Wanderer said:
I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.0 -
So Reagan gave an amnesty to millions of illegals, trebled the deficit, put up taxes and sympathised with Islamist Jihadis. The truth is out: Reagan was a Corbynista!AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrBjLSz5aA
This advert was shown in the autumn in the U.S.:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/Akyq/national-immigration-forum-action-fund-shining-ft-ronald-reagan
Sadly his sunny vision does not gain traction any more.
Apologies in both cases for the syrupy music.0 -
What's striking about that is that he expounds a quite complex argument. It's not just a one-liner like "tear down this wall".AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect:
This advert was shown in the autumn in the U.S.:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/Akyq/national-immigration-forum-action-fund-shining-ft-ronald-reagan
Sadly his sunny vision does not gain traction any more.
Apologies in both cases for the syrupy music.0 -
Reagan showed deficits don't matter, as was said at the time. Coincidentally, 538 has a piece showing the GOP has stopped talking about deficits again.foxinsoxuk said:
So Reagan gave an amnesty to millions of illegals, trebled the deficit, put up taxes and sympathised with Islamist Jihadis. The truth is out: Reagan was a Corbynista!AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrBjLSz5aA
This advert was shown in the autumn in the U.S.:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/Akyq/national-immigration-forum-action-fund-shining-ft-ronald-reagan
Sadly his sunny vision does not gain traction any more.
Apologies in both cases for the syrupy music.0 -
So, as "great President" contenders I think every two-term (or one-and-a-half-term) 20th century President has been mentioned except:
Wilson
Nixon0 -
I doubt Christie or Kasich would leave the race after the Iowa/NH pair; so the war of attrition would come between 20-23 Feb (Nevada/SC) and 1 March (Super Tuesday). Not very long.DecrepitJohnL said:
The point is that if it does turn into a war of attrition between the Establishment candidates, Bush is best placed to survive and become the only Establishment candidate. and so the non-Trump option in a two-horse race. I'd agree he has not looked very impressive in the debates but who has? (Aside from Trump.)TheWhiteRabbit said:
It must be the money and the name, true; but Bush has not been able to capitalise on either. Why should that change now? He could be fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire.DecrepitJohnL said:
The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.Wanderer said:
I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.0 -
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.0 -
The top income tax rate fell from 70% to 28% under Reagan, the unemployment rate from 10% to 7% and he began the process which ended the Cold Warfoxinsoxuk said:
So Reagan gave an amnesty to millions of illegals, trebled the deficit, put up taxes and sympathised with Islamist Jihadis. The truth is out: Reagan was a Corbynista!AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrBjLSz5aA
This advert was shown in the autumn in the U.S.:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/Akyq/national-immigration-forum-action-fund-shining-ft-ronald-reagan
Sadly his sunny vision does not gain traction any more.
Apologies in both cases for the syrupy music.0 -
Thunderball just starting on ITV1.0
-
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?RodCrosby said:
Cuban-Canadian Cruz was naturalized at birth by virtue of a statute. There was no need for a "ceremony". See Rogers v Bellei, Montana v Kennedy, Zimmer v Acheson, US v Wong Kim Ark.ThreeQuidder said:
When were their naturalisation ceremonies?RodCrosby said:Lay Cruz...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/
Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
Rubio, although born in the US, was not born to citizen parents. He is therefore a 14th amendment "citizen" of the US. See US v Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett
Cruz is finished....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-12/few-colleagues-defend-cruz-as-white-house-eligibility-is-questioned
The eejit thinks mis-quoting a long-repealed NATURALIZATION Act makes him an NBC...
Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]
Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.
Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
The US constitution is full of shit !0 -
Neither of them actually started the war. I think US involvement began under Eisenhower, escalated under Kennedy and then escalated a lot under LBJ.rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.0 -
I see Trump has closed to 1.44 from the 2.25 in NH I tipped here You can 1.64 on Betfair though. 0
-
What I don't see is why a bunch of Christie's or Kasich's support wouldn't just go to Trump if he is soaring at the time. Voters don't have an "I'm Establishment" switch in their heads (do they?) They're not locked into picking from just Rubio, Bush or whoever.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I doubt Christie or Kasich would leave the race after the Iowa/NH pair; so the war of attrition would come between 20-23 Feb (Nevada/SC) and 1 March (Super Tuesday). Not very long.DecrepitJohnL said:
The point is that if it does turn into a war of attrition between the Establishment candidates, Bush is best placed to survive and become the only Establishment candidate. and so the non-Trump option in a two-horse race. I'd agree he has not looked very impressive in the debates but who has? (Aside from Trump.)TheWhiteRabbit said:
It must be the money and the name, true; but Bush has not been able to capitalise on either. Why should that change now? He could be fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire.DecrepitJohnL said:
The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.Wanderer said:
I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.0 -
Hoover was easily the most impressive human being to occupy the office.Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Bad luck, lack of 'political' skills, and the determination of his successor that he should take all of the blame for the Depression (and none of the credit for partial recovery from it) has consigned him to the list of "best-forgotten presidents", along with Harding and Buchanan, etc.
A tragedy really, although he had the consolation of achieving more outside his presidency that almost all ever did in the course of eight years within theirs...0 -
I agree entirely - voter transfer might be a differential, but it is never 100% or anything close.Wanderer said:
What I don't see is why a bunch of Christie's or Kasich's support wouldn't just go to Trump if he is soaring at the time. Voters don't have an "I'm Establishment" switch in their heads (do they?) They're not locked into picking from just Rubio, Bush or whoever.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I doubt Christie or Kasich would leave the race after the Iowa/NH pair; so the war of attrition would come between 20-23 Feb (Nevada/SC) and 1 March (Super Tuesday). Not very long.DecrepitJohnL said:
The point is that if it does turn into a war of attrition between the Establishment candidates, Bush is best placed to survive and become the only Establishment candidate. and so the non-Trump option in a two-horse race. I'd agree he has not looked very impressive in the debates but who has? (Aside from Trump.)TheWhiteRabbit said:
It must be the money and the name, true; but Bush has not been able to capitalise on either. Why should that change now? He could be fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire.DecrepitJohnL said:
The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.Wanderer said:
I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.david_herdson said:
September, probably.Pulpstar said:When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.0 -
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/688139131965145088
Every cloud has a silver lining, but can The Guardian keep going by selling more assets?0 -
And he has a dam named after him. That's got to count for something.RodCrosby said:
Hoover was easily the most impressive human being to occupy the office.Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Bad luck, lack of 'political' skills, and the determination of his successor that he should take all of the blame for the Depression (and none of the credit for partial recovery from it) has consigned him to the list of "best-forgotten presidents", along with Harding and Buchanan, etc.
A tragedy really, although he had the consolation of achieving more outside his presidency that almost all ever did in the course of eight years within theirs...
Btw, I have been listening to the Art Tatum / Ben Webster album that I bought the other day on your recommendation. It's great. If you have any other jazz piano recommendations they'd be received with interest. I know Bill Evans somewhat.0 -
But he expanded it. Nixon of course ended it.rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.0 -
Good evening. None of you seem to know much about the war in Vietnam. After the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the French decided that Vietnam wasn't worth the candle and left that country split into North and South Vietnam. The Viet Min quickly became the Viet Cong and started infiltrating the South which was run by a corrupt government anyway. JFK started to send advisers in 1963 and the American evolvement grew from there.Wanderer said:
Neither of them actually started the war. I think US involvement began under Eisenhower, escalated under Kennedy and then escalated a lot under LBJ.rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.0 -
He sent a few advisers, there were 53 US casualties in Vietnam in 1962, in 1968 16,899rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
Under Reagan and Clinton the economy grew, unemployment fell and the US was largely at peace. LBJ had some domestic achievements but started a disastrous war in Vietnam costing thousands of young Americans their livesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:
Truman.Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties0 -
That's not right. Kennedy began to send advisors in significant numbers in 1961. There were already a few in the 50s though.MikeK said:
Good evening. None of you seem to know much about the war in Vietnam. After the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the French decided that Vietnam wasn't worth the candle and left that country split into North and South Vietnam. The Viet Min quickly became the Viet Cong and started infiltrating the South which was run by a corrupt government anyway. JFK started to send advisers in 1963 and the American evolvement grew from there.0 -
Possibly because when they were framing the constitution many of those who had fought for and led the nascent USA including 7 of the signatories of the document itself had not been born there (or in the lands that were to become the USA).surbiton said:
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?RodCrosby said:
Cuban-Canadian Cruz was naturalized at birth by virtue of a statute. There was no need for a "ceremony". See Rogers v Bellei, Montana v Kennedy, Zimmer v Acheson, US v Wong Kim Ark.ThreeQuidder said:
When were their naturalisation ceremonies?RodCrosby said:Lay Cruz...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/
Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
Rubio, although born in the US, was not born to citizen parents. He is therefore a 14th amendment "citizen" of the US. See US v Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett
Cruz is finished....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-12/few-colleagues-defend-cruz-as-white-house-eligibility-is-questioned
The eejit thinks mis-quoting a long-repealed NATURALIZATION Act makes him an NBC...
Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]
Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.
Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
The US constitution is full of shit !0 -
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stupid stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too - Brits seem to struggle to digest Maggie, no wonder if Yanks can't get to grips with Ronald - but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.0 -
13 Hours came out today.
Donald Trump rented a movie theater in Iowa so as many as possible could see it for free.0 -
Where do you think we pick up the view of him we have? From the most memorable, that s extreme, American accounts. Distance is not necessary to mythologise leaders like that. Look at thatcher and the extremes she's viewed through here. Or better yet don't and tell people to stop banging on about her.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too, but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.
Night all.
0 -
It was not at all ambiguous to them, and they would undoubtedly be shocked that anyone today would find it ambiguous...surbiton said:
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?
The US constitution is full of shit !
FYI, they did in fact consider "born in the USA", and "born a citizen", and rejected those for NBC.
We then at least may infer that NBC means neither of those things...
Natural born citizen. Two adjectives and a noun.
You must be a citizen, but...
You must also be a born citizen, but...
You must also be a natural born citizen - that is a born citizen by the operation of natural law, not man-made, statute, law.
What is natural law? The law of Nature. Procreation. Inheritance.
There is after all a clue in the pre-amble to the Constitution.
'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
Or as the SCOTUS put it definitively in 1875.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
[my emphases]0 -
Beginning in 1950, American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina.[47][A 3] U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and again in 1962.[48] U.S. involvement escalated further following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which a U.S. destroyer clashed with North Vietnamese fast attack craft, which was followed by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the U.S. president authorization to increase U.S. military presence. Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. Operations crossed international borders: bordering areas of Laos and Cambodia were heavily bombed by U.S. forces as American involvement in the war peaked in 1968, the same year that the communist side launched the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive failed in its goal of overthrowing the South Vietnamese government, but became the turning point in the war, as it persuaded a large segment of the United States population that its government's claims of progress toward winning the war were illusory despite many years of massive U.S. military aid to South Vietnam.HYUFD said:
He sent a few advisers, there were 53 US casualties in Vietnam in 1962, in 1968 16,899rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
ivesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Gradual withdrawal of U.S. ground forces began as part of "Vietnamization", which aimed to end American involvement in the war while transferring the task of fighting the Communists to the South Vietnamese themselves. Despite the Paris Peace Accord, which was signed by all parties in January 1973, the fighting continued. In the U.S. and the Western world, a large anti-Vietnam War movement developed as part of a larger counterculture. The war changed the dynamics between the Eastern and Western Blocs, and altered North-South relations.[49]
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.[50] The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War0 -
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it the whole 'natural born' problem starts with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which uses the phrase, and the 1795 revised act which doesn't.Richard_Tyndall said:
Possibly because when they were framing the constitution many of those who had fought for and led the nascent USA including 7 of the signatories of the document itself had not been born there (or in the lands that were to become the USA).surbiton said:
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?RodCrosby said:
Cuban-Canadian Cruz was naturalized at birth by virtue of a statute. There was no need for a "ceremony". See Rogers v Bellei, Montana v Kennedy, Zimmer v Acheson, US v Wong Kim Ark.ThreeQuidder said:
When were their naturalisation ceremonies?RodCrosby said:Lay Cruz...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/
Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
Rubio, although born in the US, was not born to citizen parents. He is therefore a 14th amendment "citizen" of the US. See US v Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett
Cruz is finished....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-12/few-colleagues-defend-cruz-as-white-house-eligibility-is-questioned
The eejit thinks mis-quoting a long-repealed NATURALIZATION Act makes him an NBC...
Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]
Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.
Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
The US constitution is full of shit !
The issue has never been litigated, so there is something of a grey area.0 -
It wasn't until the beginning of 1963 that advisers were arriving in Saigon in significant numbers. I remember speaking to some young American boys in Israel in 1964, who were there to escape the draft to Vietnam. They already had an inkling of the secret body bags being sent home to the States.Wanderer said:
That's not right. Kennedy began to send advisors in significant numbers in 1961. There were already a few in the 50s though.MikeK said:
Good evening. None of you seem to know much about the war in Vietnam. After the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the French decided that Vietnam wasn't worth the candle and left that country split into North and South Vietnam. The Viet Min quickly became the Viet Cong and started infiltrating the South which was run by a corrupt government anyway. JFK started to send advisers in 1963 and the American evolvement grew from there.0 -
I think British satirists did a job on Reagan that has had a lasting effect on our perceptions of him.kle4 said:
Where do you think we pick up the view of him we have? From the most memorable, that s extreme, American accounts. Distance is not necessary to mythologise leaders like that. Look at thatcher and the extremes she's viewed through here. Or better yet don't and tell people to stop banging on about her.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too, but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.
Night all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA7GTL03YjI0 -
Grant had one talent which was soldiering. He was unsuccessful in private life before the War, at one point reduced to selling lumber from a wagon, before accepting a job in his father's leather business. After the War it was almost inevitable he would get pushed into running for president. He showed bad judgement especially in his second term in awarding positions. After that he again showed bad business judgement and went bankrupt. He turned out to be a good writer though and when he learned he was dying of a terrible mouth cancer he wrote his memoires to provide for his family. It made them a considerable sum. They are worth reading, although like all such documents they should not be read in isolation.david_herdson said:
Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.0 -
Yes, so it was LBJ who first sent combat troops in 1965Sunil_Prasannan said:
Beginning in 1950, American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina.[47][A 3] U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and again in 1962.[48] U.S. involvement escalated further following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which a U.S. destroyer clashed with North Vietnamese fast attack craft, which was followed by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the U.S. president authorization to increase U.S. military presence. Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. Operations crossed international borders: bordering areas of Laos and Cambodia were heavily bombed by U.S. forces as American involvement in the war peaked in 1968, the same year that the communist side launched the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive failed in its goal of overthrowing the South Vietnamese government, but became the turning point in the war, as it persuaded a large segment of the United States population that its government's claims of progress toward winning the war were illusory despite many years of massive U.S. military aid to South Vietnam.HYUFD said:
He sent a few advisers, there were 53 US casualties in Vietnam in 1962, in 1968 16,899rcs1000 said:
JFK started the war, not LBJ.HYUFD said:
ivesWanderer said:
I agree about Truman.Richard_Tyndall said:Wanderer said:In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.
Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.
It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Gradual withdrawal of U.S. ground forces began as part of "Vietnamization", which aimed to end American involvement in the war while transferring the task of fighting the Communists to the South Vietnamese themselves. Despite the Paris Peace Accord, which was signed by all parties in January 1973, the fighting continued. In the U.S. and the Western world, a large anti-Vietnam War movement developed as part of a larger counterculture. The war changed the dynamics between the Eastern and Western Blocs, and altered North-South relations.[49]
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.[50] The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War0 -
A professor of politics at Northeastern University, Robert E. Gilbert, wrote a cheerily-titled tome: "The Tormented President: Calvin Coolidge, Death, and Clinical Depression".david_herdson said:
Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.
He claims that, at his worst, Coolidge slept for as much as fifteen hours per day!!0 -
This is pretty funny: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775028/republican-debate-2016-china0
-
A lawsuit has been filed in Galveston Texas challenging Ted Cruz' citizenship and his eligibility to run for President.
Here we go.0 -
LBJ staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident so that he could wage unrestricted war on the Vietnamese Communists.0
-
They were covered by the "or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" clause.Richard_Tyndall said:
Possibly because when they were framing the constitution many of those who had fought for and led the nascent USA including 7 of the signatories of the document itself had not been born there (or in the lands that were to become the USA).surbiton said:
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?RodCrosby said:
Cuban-Canadian Cruz was naturalized at birth by virtue of a statute. There was no need for a "ceremony". See Rogers v Bellei, Montana v Kennedy, Zimmer v Acheson, US v Wong Kim Ark.ThreeQuidder said:
When were their naturalisation ceremonies?RodCrosby said:Lay Cruz...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/
Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
Rubio, although born in the US, was not born to citizen parents. He is therefore a 14th amendment "citizen" of the US. See US v Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett
Cruz is finished....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-12/few-colleagues-defend-cruz-as-white-house-eligibility-is-questioned
The eejit thinks mis-quoting a long-repealed NATURALIZATION Act makes him an NBC...
Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]
Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.
Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
The US constitution is full of shit !
The "Citizens" in 1787 could only be the people, from wherever, who had adhered to the Revolution and come together to found the new nation. Obviously none of them could have been natural-born citizens of the USA, a nation that did not yet exist at the time of their births, so an exception was made for them. They would die out, so eventually the only operative clause in Article II would be the NBC clause.0 -
IMHO, Maggie was more "right wing" than Regan.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stupid stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too - Brits seem to struggle to digest Maggie, no wonder if Yanks can't get to grips with Ronald - but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.0 -
When I read your first sentence I thought, "He had another talent, which was literary" but you get onto that.flightpath01 said:
Grant had one talent which was soldiering. He was unsuccessful in private life before the War, at one point reduced to selling lumber from a wagon, before accepting a job in his father's leather business. After the War it was almost inevitable he would get pushed into running for president. He showed bad judgement especially in his second term in awarding positions. After that he again showed bad business judgement and went bankrupt. He turned out to be a good writer though and when he learned he was dying of a terrible mouth cancer he wrote his memoires to provide for his family. It made them a considerable sum. They are worth reading, although like all such documents they should not be read in isolation.david_herdson said:
Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.
I think his memoirs are fascinating and convey something of what made him such a successful general. Solid, soldierly prose, a bit reminiscent of Caesar. And tendentious as hell, not unlike Caesar (probably).0 -
Funny: I always think of Maggie as a liberal.Casino_Royale said:
IMHO, Maggie was more "right wing" than Regan.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stupid stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too - Brits seem to struggle to digest Maggie, no wonder if Yanks can't get to grips with Ronald - but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.0 -
Elements of economic liberalism. She wasn't a social liberal.rcs1000 said:
Funny: I always think of Maggie as a liberal.Casino_Royale said:
IMHO, Maggie was more "right wing" than Regan.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stupid stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too - Brits seem to struggle to digest Maggie, no wonder if Yanks can't get to grips with Ronald - but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.0 -
Thick Texan fucks. They deserve hurricanes.Tim_B said:A lawsuit has been filed in Galveston Texas challenging Ted Cruz' citizenship and his eligibility to run for President.
Here we go.0 -
0
-
Yes.Wanderer said:
When I read your first sentence I thought, "He had another talent, which was literary" but you get onto that.flightpath01 said:
Grant had one talent which was soldiering. He was unsuccessful in private life before the War, at one point reduced to selling lumber from a wagon, before accepting a job in his father's leather business. After the War it was almost inevitable he would get pushed into running for president. He showed bad judgement especially in his second term in awarding positions. After that he again showed bad business judgement and went bankrupt. He turned out to be a good writer though and when he learned he was dying of a terrible mouth cancer he wrote his memoires to provide for his family. It made them a considerable sum. They are worth reading, although like all such documents they should not be read in isolation.david_herdson said:
Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.
I think his memoirs are fascinating and convey something of what made him such a successful general. Solid, soldierly prose, a bit reminiscent of Caesar. And tendentious as hell, not unlike Caesar (probably).
But I think to read through the inevitable self serving parts (as with many other memoirs, not least of civil war generals) allows you to learn a lot. Famously he turned down the presidents invitation to accompany him to the theatre.0 -
Surely not. He was a Democrat!foxinsoxuk said:LBJ staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident so that he could wage unrestricted war on the Vietnamese Communists.
0 -
It's a red herring.Tim_B said:
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it the whole 'natural born' problem starts with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which uses the phrase, and the 1795 revised act which doesn't.Richard_Tyndall said:
Possibly because when they were framing the constitution many of those who had fought for and led the nascent USA including 7 of the signatories of the document itself had not been born there (or in the lands that were to become the USA).surbiton said:
It has to be asked why the framers of the constitution chose such ambiguous language. They could have simply written "...born in the USA...." Who is unnaturally born ? C-section ?RodCrosby said:
Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]ThreeQuidder said:
When were their naturalisation ceremonies?RodCrosby said:Lay Cruz...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/
Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.
Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
The US constitution is full of shit !
The issue has never been litigated, so there is something of a grey area.
It was a Naturalization Act, which as it suggests, needed some statute, as opposed to natural law, to make them citizens.
The 1790 Act said "shall be considered as NBCs", not "shall be NBCs." No serious Constitutional theorist believes that a mere statute can alter the meaning of a constitutional phrase, and neither did the Congress in 1790, really. Only the amendment procedure or a SCOTUS interpretation can do that. Hence the Congress's choice of words.
By 1795 Congress realised their 1790 wording was confusing and superfluous, and altered it to "shall be considered as citizens." Never again has Congress purported to create people "considered as" NBCs, let alone purported to create NBCs. In fact, between 1802 and 1855 they reversed entirely, and such people (born abroad of an American father) were now aliens!0 -
She was far more bullish on nuclear weapons, squaring up to communism, Western intervention ("don't go wobbly") and tougher on immigration than Reagan.rcs1000 said:
Funny: I always think of Maggie as a liberal.Casino_Royale said:
IMHO, Maggie was more "right wing" than Regan.MyBurningEars said:
Only what you wouldn't expect if you'd grown up with some stupid stereotyped, fairytale, fantasy version of Reagan, though. (Either through not having lived through it at the time, or only getting contemporary information Nth hand through unhelpful filters.)AlastairMeeks said:Reagan on immigration. Not at all what you might expect
He has both outspoken supporters and detractors in Britain who frankly don't know much at all about the man. I've often wondered whether Brits would think differently about, say, JFK or LBJ, if only they did a little background reading.
I am curious to what extent the use of Reagan, amongst others, as a kind of dry-wipe totem for hanging your pet political views on (or, indeed, for pegging the woes of the world on) holds in the States as well. I can only imagine it's pretty prevalent there too - Brits seem to struggle to digest Maggie, no wonder if Yanks can't get to grips with Ronald - but I hope that his folk memory there extends beyond the one or two dimensions that it has been confined to on these shores.
She was admirably non-plussed and disinterested in the sexual preferences of her ministers and oversaw a significant domestic financial and social liberalisation.
The key thing is: she always put making Britain a great country again, first.0 -
The Guardian / ICM monthly poll database stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the existence of UKIP as a party separate from "others":
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oHcxlAbkTJmqfOxYQM22cvjjjRf5pETIF30x7L-qybc/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/icm-poll-data-labour-conservatives0 -
So if it is a "red herring" does that mean he can be president or not? I am lost.0
-
Tatum is God. The whole of the Group masterpieces are enjoyable, and in lovely Stereo, IIRC. I saw an offer for the whole lot (8 albums) for just £16 on Amazon.Wanderer said:
And he has a dam named after him. That's got to count for something.RodCrosby said:
Hoover was easily the most impressive human being to occupy the office.Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Bad luck, lack of 'political' skills, and the determination of his successor that he should take all of the blame for the Depression (and none of the credit for partial recovery from it) has consigned him to the list of "best-forgotten presidents", along with Harding and Buchanan, etc.
A tragedy really, although he had the consolation of achieving more outside his presidency that almost all ever did in the course of eight years within theirs...
Btw, I have been listening to the Art Tatum / Ben Webster album that I bought the other day on your recommendation. It's great. If you have any other jazz piano recommendations they'd be received with interest. I know Bill Evans somewhat.
The same producer, Norman Granz, had previously coaxed Tatum into the studio in 1953 for the Solo Masterpieces, beautifully recorded in Mono (now remastered). Art just sat down, with an obligatory crate of ale beside him!, and in just four mammoth sessions tootled through almost the entire American song book... 124 numbers, with just 3 retakes!...
Other must-have albums are the Capitol recordings from 1949, and the L.A. Shrine Auditorium concert from the same year.
Although he rarely played the Blues commercially, Art was acknowledged by his peers (in addition to being the world's greatest pianist) as probably the world's greatest blues pianist.
He usually confined his Blues playing to after-hours joints for himself and his buddies (there's even a 1941 bootleg recording of him singing the blues to his own accompaniment, drunk as a lord, by the sound of it!)
Occasionally, he let a Blues slip into his commercial output. Critics have marvelled over this one for over 60 years (from the Capitol recording)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEdCICnyL0
I'll talk about Bill Evans in another post...0 -
Report in that well-known right-wing paper, the Independent:
"Swedish police will no longer be able to give descriptions of alleged criminals for fear of being seen as racist.
According to an internal letter, police in capital city Stockholm are instructed to refrain from describing suspects' race and nationality, according to news website Speisa.
Local newspaper Svenska Dagbadet reported it had seen the letter, which it said outlined how officers should now notify the public of crimes."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-police-are-not-allowed-to-give-descriptions-of-alleged-criminals-so-as-not-to-sound-racist-a6810311.html0 -
The betting for next president seems very strange. I do not see how Trump can be second favourite as ha is bound to lose if the candidate (unless up against Sanders) and similarly Sanders how can he be 10.5. How could he win? Personally I think Biden has more chance to be the next president than Sanders.0
-
If it's the capitalist Trump vs the socialist Sanders, Trump will win easily. If you can't see that, you don't understand America very well unfortunately.gettingbetter said:The betting for next president seems very strange. I do not see how Trump can be second favourite as ha is bound to lose if the candidate (unless up against Sanders) and similarly Sanders how can he be 10.5. How could he win? Personally I think Biden has more chance to be the next president than Sanders.
0 -
This is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. That 'these were ... natural-born citizens' as a statement does not necessarily mean that all others are not.RodCrosby said:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
[my emphases]0 -
My Texan friends are the most charismatic, charming and scarily smart people I know.Eh_ehm_a_eh said:
Thick Texan fucks. They deserve hurricanes.Tim_B said:A lawsuit has been filed in Galveston Texas challenging Ted Cruz' citizenship and his eligibility to run for President.
Here we go.
So no more stereotypes please. And no one deserves a hurricane.0 -
Thanks. I will look into these things in the morning.RodCrosby said:
Tatum is God. The whole of the Group masterpieces are enjoyable, and in lovely Stereo, IIRC. I saw an offer for the whole lot (8 albums) for just £16 on Amazon.Wanderer said:
And he has a dam named after him. That's got to count for something.RodCrosby said:
Hoover was easily the most impressive human being to occupy the office.Wanderer said:If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.
Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
Bad luck, lack of 'political' skills, and the determination of his successor that he should take all of the blame for the Depression (and none of the credit for partial recovery from it) has consigned him to the list of "best-forgotten presidents", along with Harding and Buchanan, etc.
A tragedy really, although he had the consolation of achieving more outside his presidency that almost all ever did in the course of eight years within theirs...
Btw, I have been listening to the Art Tatum / Ben Webster album that I bought the other day on your recommendation. It's great. If you have any other jazz piano recommendations they'd be received with interest. I know Bill Evans somewhat.
The same producer, Norman Granz, had previously coaxed Tatum into the studio in 1953 for the Solo Masterpieces, beautifully recorded in Mono (now remastered). Art just sat down, with an obligatory crate of ale beside him!, and in just four mammoth sessions tootled through almost the entire American song book... 124 numbers, with just 3 retakes!...
Other must-have albums are the Capitol recordings from 1949, and the L.A. Shrine Auditorium concert from the same year.
Although he rarely played the Blues commercially, Art was acknowledged by his peers (in addition to being the world's greatest pianist) as probably the world's greatest blues pianist.
He usually confined his Blues playing to after-hours joints for himself and his buddies (there's even a 1941 bootleg recording of him singing the blues to his own accompaniment, drunk as a lord, by the sound of it!)
Occasionally, he let a Blues slip into his commercial output. Critics have marvelled over this one for over 60 years (from the Capitol recording)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEdCICnyL0
I'll talk about Bill Evans in another post...
And that is a remarkable piece of blues. Bloody hell.0 -
Oh please. Trust me. Judges don't waste their time making statements that are nebulous or can be misinterpreted. They even took the trouble to say "as distinguished from...", meaning it is exclusive. This is the classic legal language of a definition.MTimT said:
This is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. That 'these were ... natural-born citizens' as a statement does not necessarily mean that all others are not.RodCrosby said:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
[my emphases]
The NBCs are "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens."
Everyone else is an alien or foreigner...0 -
The latest RCP average has Sanders leading Trump by 2%. Rubio beats Hillary and Sanders, Hillary and Sanders beat Trump. Don't forget America has an increasing minority electorate and Hispanics in particular will not vote for Trump meaning he has to win an overwhelming majority of the white vote to win, easier said than doneAndyJS said:
If it's the capitalist Trump vs the socialist Sanders, Trump will win easily. If you can't see that, you don't understand America very well unfortunately.gettingbetter said:The betting for next president seems very strange. I do not see how Trump can be second favourite as ha is bound to lose if the candidate (unless up against Sanders) and similarly Sanders how can he be 10.5. How could he win? Personally I think Biden has more chance to be the next president than Sanders.
0 -
And besides, the judges tell us in their pre-amble that who is an NBC is precisely what they're trying to ascertain...RodCrosby said:
Oh please. Trust me. Judges don't waste their time making statements that are nebulous or can be misinterpreted. They even took the trouble to say "as distinguished from...", meaning it is exclusive. This is the classic legal language of a definition.MTimT said:
This is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. That 'these were ... natural-born citizens' as a statement does not necessarily mean that all others are not.RodCrosby said:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
[my emphases]
The NBCs are "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens."
Everyone else is an alien or foreigner...
ascertain
verb
find (something) out for certain; make sure of.
"an attempt to ascertain the cause of the accident"
synonyms: find out, discover, get/come to know, work out, make out, fathom (out), become aware of, learn, ferret out, dig out/up, establish, fix, determine, settle, decide, verify, make certain of, confirm, deduce, divine, intuit, diagnose, discern, perceive, see, realize, appreciate, identify, pin down, recognize, register, understand, grasp, take in, comprehend;0 -
For the first time in about 10 years I've had a look at the UK singles chart, only to find that Justin Bieber currently occupies 3 of the top 4 places:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles0 -
Well that'll teach you.AndyJS said:For the first time in about 10 years I've had a look at the UK singles chart, only to find that Justin Bieber currently occupies 3 of the top 4 places:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles
Forget that pap/crap.
There's a whole vault of real music out there, waiting to be listened to.0 -
Bollocks. Prima facie its inclusive, and 'as distinguished from' relates to 'natural born' not 'these'. Learn to read English.RodCrosby said:
Oh please. Trust me. Judges don't waste their time making statements that are nebulous or can be misinterpreted. They even took the trouble to say "as distinguished from...", meaning it is exclusive. This is the classic legal language of a definition.MTimT said:
This is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. That 'these were ... natural-born citizens' as a statement does not necessarily mean that all others are not.RodCrosby said:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
[my emphases]
The NBCs are "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens."
Everyone else is an alien or foreigner...0 -
R.I.P Dan 'Grizzly Adams' Haggerty.0
-
Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted and / or drop out of the race for ''Health Reasons''...the Feds are closing in on her and her exits are closing down ; she is going to be caught in a web of her own lies and reckless cavalier behaviour ..this is going to end within weeks
Hillary is a sinking ship going into a perfect storm !
All the fools who bet on Hillary become the ''first female president '' are going to lose their money ......!
JAN 16TH 20160 -
Says the man who bet Rubio would be the next President, he is now going to be lucky to get third place in the GOP primaries! I still think Hillary will remain in the race and while she will be fined or reprimanded she will not be indictedCromwell said:Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted and / or drop out of the race for ''Health Reasons''...the Feds are closing in on her and her exits are closing down ; she is going to be caught in a web of her own lies and reckless cavalier behaviour ..this is going to end within weeks
Hillary is a sinking ship going into a perfect storm !
All the fools who bet on Hillary become the ''first female president '' are going to lose their money ......!
JAN 16TH 20160
This discussion has been closed.