|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 26, 2019 15:28:36 GMT -5
Hey Whembly, there's this French expression, what do you think about it? « Dieu se rit des hommes qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes » translate as “ God laugh at men who lament consequences whose origin they cherish ” I feel it's especially appropriate to you lamenting the Covington kids thing while planing to vote for Trump. Also you yet again seemed to miss it! Ooooohh you missed it! Cute!!! So then, the discussion was not about firearms anymore! Who could have guess, from you refusing to defend your “money” point and instead only focusing on firearms… Uh, then do it? Because maybe you can, but so far you had not. But that's exactly what I said! When the cons are this bad, the pros have to be something like “will cure cancer and solve world hunger too”. lol. Bad faaaaaaaith! Also still not acknowledging that my behavior is consistent on politicians (and other public figures) regardless of political affiliations. Praising and pardoning the biggest one is a clear message that he values them and have their back. I have no idea how he could make the message clearer. You want to pretend you didn't see it, but they sure did! Yeah? Then vote for someone else in the primaries and don't vote for him in the election, if he wins the primaries! It is, incredibly so. It sends a clear message to the police forces that they are above the law. When your police forces are above the law, that's when you go full authoritarian nightmare. Except for, you know, the racism, but you don't really care about racism and think it's quite okay. Only when/because you support him. Start denouncing him and we won't. I mean, we don't blame Baron Iveagh for Trump, for the obvious reason that he criticize Trump as much as we do, and, very importantly, doesn't plan to vote for him. Unlike you. I'm not laughing Whembly. That's not a game to me. When it's about racist cops being paraded as the best of us, you can say “Well, it's not that bad”. When it's about teens being criticized in the media NO THAT IS BREAKING ME I CANNOT BEAR THAT. May I ask why the first event is less meaningful to you than the second one? I mean, one involved both racist cop, a pretty serious problem, and AN ACTUAL THING HAPPENING, with the guy being out of prison. Some criminal avoiding prison. The second was just words, really. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 15:55:32 GMT -5
But why on Earth do you have to register ahead of time for any of that? Because that the system that we've devised. Caveat, all 50 states has independent regulations governing this, so there can be variances in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 16:00:06 GMT -5
He's obviously an American by virtue of his American mother. Full stop.
Whembly, I'm actually going to have to fact check you, ever so slightly, on this one. Obama is a citizen, but only because he was born in the US. His mother's citizenship doesn't matter. Obama was born in 1961, when his mother was 18. At that time birthright citizenship worked a bit differently. You needed to have a minimal age of 19 AND have at least a minimal residency within US borders (I want to say 5 years of being in the US after age 14) to confer citizenship onto your child. This was called the residency retention clause. His mother failed both halves of it. This was changed in 1978 to what we have today.
Erm... that's new. Do you have citation to back that up? I coulda swore citizenship was conferred automatically if at least one parent is a citizen, regardless of age. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 16:15:08 GMT -5
Hey Whembly, there's this French expression, what do you think about it? « Dieu se rit des hommes qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes » translate as “ God laugh at men who lament consequences whose origin they cherish ” I feel it's especially appropriate to you lamenting the Covington kids thing while planing to vote for Trump. Cute. Hey man... that's like... your opinion. The Dude Abides...  |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 26, 2019 16:56:45 GMT -5
Whembly, I'm actually going to have to fact check you, ever so slightly, on this one. Obama is a citizen, but only because he was born in the US. His mother's citizenship doesn't matter. Obama was born in 1961, when his mother was 18. At that time birthright citizenship worked a bit differently. You needed to have a minimal age of 19 AND have at least a minimal residency within US borders (I want to say 5 years of being in the US after age 14) to confer citizenship onto your child. This was called the residency retention clause. His mother failed both halves of it. This was changed in 1978 to what we have today.
Erm... that's new. Do you have citation to back that up? I coulda swore citizenship was conferred automatically if at least one parent is a citizen, regardless of age. There was actually a Supreme Court case regarding this a year or two ago. Basically they concluded that a guy who was born in Mexico in the 1970's isn't a US citizen despite his dad being a citizen, as dad spent too much time in Mexico and didn't have the prerequisite residency.
There's some mention of this on Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Also: www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
So, it looks like in 1961 (if born outside the US) , in order to be a US citizen, at least one parent must have been a US citizen with 10 years of residence, at least 5 of which must have been after the age of 14.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 26, 2019 17:15:54 GMT -5
But why on Earth do you have to register ahead of time for any of that? Because that the system that we've devised. Caveat, all 50 states has independent regulations governing this, so there can be variances in the process. That's not an answer. Why is it designed that way? |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 26, 2019 17:23:34 GMT -5
You fucked up the quote bad! Accurate. How do I know that you are not surprising me? I'll know if you do surprise me! You don't know the cases, and yet pretend that you can nonetheless compare them to another case. Obvious bad faith. Should add it to your thread too. That's your interpretation. That's not my interpretation, this is an obvious consequence! Except I didn't say that. No, that's a direct consequence of what you said though. See... it's cute to see that you care so much. There nothing cute about bad things happening and caring is good. Two events are mutually exclusive sweet pea. Whaaaat? Because the kids had no defense to the public mob. The victims of Arpaio didn't exactly get a lot of defense either. Arpaio got a quite unfair amount of “defense”. Straight up denial of justice. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 17:29:18 GMT -5
Because that the system that we've devised. Caveat, all 50 states has independent regulations governing this, so there can be variances in the process. That's not an answer. Why is it designed that way? I've listed the reasons originally. So, not sure what more you want. Could we get rid of voter registration? Sure. There's also a practical reason for voter registrations... it's to get a good head count of who is intending to vote. That way, the government can ensure the logistic of providing enough ballots and voting places in each voting district. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 17:33:58 GMT -5
You fucked up the quote bad! So did you where you cut out my responses.  I've already established that I didn't know anything about your cases. My only assumption was that since Ford's words were... just her word, without any other corroborating evidence, I couldn't imagine a weaker allegation. Ok. So you say. Adorbs. That was my reaction to your question. And that is unfortunate. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 26, 2019 17:43:33 GMT -5
That's not an answer. Why is it designed that way? I've listed the reasons originally. So, not sure what more you want. Could we get rid of voter registration? Sure. There's also a practical reason for voter registrations... it's to get a good head count of who is intending to vote. That way, the government can ensure the logistic of providing enough ballots and voting places in each voting district. Or you could just have enough ballots for everyone and not have the vote-supressing downside of having to register. You'd also save a bunch on the administration of having to register, re-register, de-re-register, and re-de-re-registering people 24/7.
I don't get the US. You rage and whine about how bad Big Government is and how inefficient it is and then you insist on using the least useful, most archaic mechanisms you possibly can to run your government. Surprise?
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 17:50:26 GMT -5
I've listed the reasons originally. So, not sure what more you want. Could we get rid of voter registration? Sure. There's also a practical reason for voter registrations... it's to get a good head count of who is intending to vote. That way, the government can ensure the logistic of providing enough ballots and voting places in each voting district. Or you could just have enough ballots for everyone and not have the vote-supressing downside of having to register. You'd also save a bunch on the administration of having to register, re-register, de-re-register, and re-de-re-registering people 24/7. How would you propose to prevent people from voting more than once? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 26, 2019 17:56:09 GMT -5
Or you could just have enough ballots for everyone and not have the vote-supressing downside of having to register. You'd also save a bunch on the administration of having to register, re-register, de-re-register, and re-de-re-registering people 24/7. How would you propose to prevent people from voting more than once? From 2000 to 2014 there have only been 31 cases of someone proven to have impersonated someone else, which is the only type of voter fraud voter ID aims to combat. 31 cases out of hundreds of millions of votes. Think about that. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 26, 2019 18:01:42 GMT -5
Or you could just have enough ballots for everyone and not have the vote-supressing downside of having to register. You'd also save a bunch on the administration of having to register, re-register, de-re-register, and re-de-re-registering people 24/7. How would you propose to prevent people from voting more than once? Dunno, look at literally any other working democracy in the world and pick one approach?
Or, actually, I've got one that would probably work that I think you'd support: ID requirements to vote. Combined with a massive push to ensure everyone has a state-provided ID card. None of this "oh, you've got to go to the DMV which is open once every fortnight in odd-numbered months" BS. Make sure you bend over backwards to give people valid ID, and only THEN change to a system where it's required.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 26, 2019 18:11:55 GMT -5
How would you propose to prevent people from voting more than once? Dunno, look at literally any other working democracy in the world and pick one approach?
Or, actually, I've got one that would probably work that I think you'd support: ID requirements to vote. Combined with a massive push to ensure everyone has a state-provided ID card. None of this "oh, you've got to go to the DMV which is open once every fortnight in odd-numbered months" BS. Make sure you bend over backwards to give people valid ID, and only THEN change to a system where it's required.
I'm fine with that plan. We already sorta have an "ID system" in Social Security. Expand that department to remake that into a ID suitable to be used in voting elections. I'm also an advocate to make national elections a "banking holiday". |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 26, 2019 19:21:56 GMT -5
Oh yeah, that's another point that'd have to be fixed.
I'm pretty sure Democrats in general would be a lot more receptive to voter ID as a concept if it weren't so blatantly accompanied by efforts to make it harder for people to vote. Similar to how I imagine Democrat voters would be fine with spending more on border security if it went to faster, more humane processing instead of to whatever private company is holding the contract for the latest child-cage facility.
|
|
Ooooohh you missed it! Cute!!!
