2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Kennedy bear Nixon by 112,000 votes in the popular vote. I actually believed it was the other way around until just now, I've heard it stated as fact so many time.

Nixon win more states, 26-22, but Kennedy won both the electoral college and popular vote.



I agree.

Interesting as I have head it on a number of occasions as well. Maybe this can shed light on it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833-2.html

I suppose the better question to ask is regarding the alleged voting fraud in Chicago and Texas.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Interesting as I have head it on a number of occasions as well. Maybe this can shed light on it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833-2.html

I suppose the better question to ask is regarding the alleged voting fraud in Chicago and Texas.

In fairness, that article asks more questions than it answers. The record states that Kennedy won the popular vote and he won the electoral college by a long way.

Manic Moran

jank wrote: »

Interesting as I have head it on a number of occasions as well. Maybe this can shed light on it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833-2.html

That's a fascinating read. I've learned something.

eire4

Manach wrote: »

Surely we just need to ask the NSA what were the emails about ...

Haha funny although probably true as well.

IvySlayer

It's a bit of a non-scandal that only the Republicians are banging on about, could Bohener, Congress or even the Senate call her up and start an investigation?

Amerika

IvySlayer wrote: »

It's a bit of a non-scandal that only the Republicians are banging on about, could Bohener, Congress or even the Senate call her up and start an investigation?

Yes, if you believe Hillary Clinton isn’t exempt from such things as obstruction of justice, that does apply to us mere mortals. (And of which she should remember, because as a US Senator she voted in favor of Section 1519 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.)

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, if you believe Hillary Clinton isn’t exempt from such things as obstruction of justice, that does apply to us mere mortals. (And of which she should remember, because as a US Senator she voted in favor of Section 1519 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.)

She hasn't obstructed justice yet. Settle down. It's a manufactured scandal until she actual does something illegal or morally wrong.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

She hasn't obstructed justice yet. Settle down. It's a manufactured scandal until she actual does something illegal or morally wrong.

That might not be an accurate statement.

I’m no lawyer, but I believe it was only once the subpoenas started coming in that she then deleted some 32,000 emails on the server that she conducted sensitive official state business. It could be considered and “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” An act purposely done to make it more difficult for investigators to do their job, and of which runs afoul of the law as is makes prosecution much easier because the law covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.”

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

That might not be an accurate statement.

I’m no lawyer, but I believe it was only once the subpoenas started coming in that she then deleted some 32,000 emails on the server that she conducted sensitive official state business. It could be considered and “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” An act purposely done to make it more difficult for investigators to do their job, and of which runs afoul of the law as is makes prosecution much easier because the law covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.”

Evidence for this?

I think she has something to hide, but whether it was illegal or not remains unknown. Deleting 30-something thousand emails shows that she obviously didn't want people to see something, but there's no evidence (from reliable sources) that she has obstructed justice yet.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Evidence for this?

I think she has something to hide, but whether it was illegal or not remains unknown. Deleting 30-something thousand emails shows that she obviously didn't want people to see something, but there's no evidence (from reliable sources) that she has obstructed justice yet.

Evidence for what? She stated she conducted official state business on her email server. The House Select Committee on Benghazi had sent subpoenas to the State Department on the 4th of March explicitly requesting all of Clinton’s communications relating to Libya. It was several days after that she then informed the State that she directed her staff to delete all of her “private” emails from the server, including all those emails from Bill... you know, the ones he never sent.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That might not be an accurate statement.

The irony of this is hilarious. Nothing has been proven and you're accusing her of obstructing justice.

I’m no lawyer, but I believe it was only once the subpoenas started coming in that she then deleted some 32,000 emails on the server that she conducted sensitive official state business. It could be considered and “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” An act purposely done to make it more difficult for investigators to do their job, and of which runs afoul of the law as is makes prosecution much easier because the law covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.”

You're no judge or jury either but you've decided already that she's guilty.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Evidence for what? She stated she conducted official state business on her email server. The House Select Committee on Benghazi had sent subpoenas to the State Department on the 4th of March explicitly requesting all of Clinton’s communications relating to Libya. It was several days after that she then informed the State that she directed her staff to delete all of her “private” emails from the server, including all those emails from Bill... you know, the ones he never sent.

Can I see evidence for this?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Can I see evidence for this?

Okay, but why do you need evidence... and will it make any difference in your mind? Haven't you already determined she's not guilty of any wrongdoing?

4, March 2015
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-committee-subpoena-clinton-emails-benghazi-probe/

10, March 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2988099/Hillary-Clinton-finally-addresses-email-controversy-DAYS-silence.html

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The irony of this is hilarious. Nothing has been proven and you're accusing her of obstructing justice.

Not just me...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ronald-d-rotunda-hillarys-emails-and-the-law-1426547356

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, but why do you need evidence... and will it make any difference in your mind? Haven't you already determined she's not guilty of any wrongdoing?

4, March 2015
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-committee-subpoena-clinton-emails-benghazi-probe/

10, March 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2988099/Hillary-Clinton-finally-addresses-email-controversy-DAYS-silence.html

It may make a difference. I'm ready to believe she did something wrong, in fact I know she did something wrong, but it's the "obstructing justice" part I take issue with.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It may make a difference. I'm ready to believe she did something wrong, in fact I know she did something wrong, but it's the "obstructing justice" part I take issue with.

Personally speaking, now that the media has rekindled a smidgen of their journalistic integrity (even The New York Times) and have now just started reporting on the problems with The Clinton Foundation regarding purpose, suspect donors and pay-to-play accusations, I think it will become a much bigger concern in the eyes of the electorate than the email server scandal.

Black Swan

Isn't there someone more qualified in America than another Bush immediate family member to become president in 2016 out of 310 plus million US citizens? Daddy Bush I, Baby Bush II, and now Brother Bush III? And brother Jeb Bush is growing another George Bush to become Bush IV. What's wrong with this picture? Does anyone see the craic?

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Isn't there someone more qualified in America than another Bush immediate family member to become president in 2016 out of 310 plus million US citizens?

Nostalgia for the monarchy? Taking a leaf out of the book of Dáil Dynasties?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Isn't there someone more qualified in America than another Bush immediate family member to become president in 2016 out of 310 plus million US citizens? Daddy Bush I, Baby Bush II, and now Brother Bush III? And brother Jeb Bush is growing another George Bush to become Bush IV. What's wrong with this picture? Does anyone see the craic?

Yes, Scott Walker.

And there’s nothing wrong with this picture. Show me where any families other than the Bush’s or the Kennedy’s in recent history have given so much sacrifice to the public interest and good? I liked both 41 & 43, but Jeb isn’t my first choice in 2016, and I won’t be voting for him in the primary. But if to comes down to Jeb or Hillary, I’ll be holding my nose and going with Bush, as hopefully will the majority of US citizens.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

Isn't there someone more qualified in America than another Bush immediate family member to become president in 2016 out of 310 plus million US citizens? Daddy Bush I, Baby Bush II, and now Brother Bush III? And brother Jeb Bush is growing another George Bush to become Bush IV. What's wrong with this picture? Does anyone see the craic?

Exactly the same thing that has seen us end up with the Kennedy dynasty, and now Clinton II in the wings.

Was reading an article recently that showed that the primary reason for Clinton's popularity is that she's female. As the article pointed out, there are somewhere about 100million females in the US, let's say 33 million are Democrats. Can the Democratic Party not nominate a better female candidate? Surely we can determine our candidates beyond the level of 'famous vagina'.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And there’s nothing wrong with this picture. Show me where any families other than the Bush’s or the Kennedy’s in recent history have given so much sacrifice to the public interest and good?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Exactly the same thing that has seen us end up with the Kennedy dynasty, and now Clinton II in the wings.

There are no other citizens for president "in recent history [that] have given so much sacrifice to the public interest and good" other than dynasty or machine candidates out of 310 million American citizens? It seems incredible that the world's superpower and largest economy produces so few qualified leaders that they have to resort to Bush and Kennedy Dynasties, or the Clinton Machine. The way that many of these dynasty and machine voters act during campaign rallies appears to go beyond admiration to adoration as if they were living gods of ancient times, or worse, celebrity rock stars.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was reading an article recently that showed that the primary reason for Clinton's popularity is that she's female. As the article pointed out, there are somewhere about 100million females in the US, let's say 33 million are Democrats.

I am not in favour of Hilliary Clinton, finding her just as unimaginative and boring as Jeb Bush. But at this moment in time, it looks like neither the Democrats or Republicans will nominate a better female (or male) candidate, so why bother to vote for either?

"Can the Democratic Party not nominate a better female candidate" than Hilliary Clinton, also asks the question why the Republican Party could not nominate a better female candidate than Sarah Palin in 2008?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can the Democratic Party not nominate a better female candidate? Surely we can determine our candidates beyond the level of 'famous vagina'.

We could also use a similar reference to male anatomy and why someone thinks it makes them more qualified to be president, or to be the vast majority of seat holders in both houses of the US Congress? How about if we focus on qualifications for office, and not anatomy?

jank

Black Swan wrote: »

We could also use a similar reference to male anatomy and why someone thinks it makes them more qualified to be president, or to be the vast majority of seat holders in both houses of the US Congress? How about if we focus on qualifications for office, and not anatomy?

I think that was the point he was trying to make, as per article he read?

Black Swan

jank wrote: »

I think that was the point he was trying to make, as per article he read?

Oh, I agree with MM that we should consider qualifications rather than anatomy as a criteria for office, but was simply offering a balanced perspective for both anatomies, because there does appear to be American voter-bias by anatomy historically in US elections for president.

@MM: If the American voter is only given the choice between Jeb and Hilliary for 2016, can we start a write-in campaign to elect your favourite anteater for president on the ballot? What was his or her name (the anatomy was not important)? The one in the tank. :cool:

jank

Well, in fairness the fact that Hillary is a women is a trump card for her in many ways. Making history and all that. But I do see the point regarding the previous winners as well.

Paleface

Ted Cruz officially launches his campaign for POTUS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32022375

Can't see him winning the GOP nomination but he is a tea party favourite so will stir up support in the primaries.

Also I know it was discussed here before but the fact that he was born in Canada should make him inelligble for the position no?

His mother is American so he obtained US citizenship as a result but doesn't the wording state that he has to be born in the US?

Edit: Found this wikipedia page that explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

So he is considered a natural born citizen via his mother. That really shows then just how stupid the whole argument over Obama's birthcert was!

alaimacerc

Paleface wrote: »

His mother is American so he obtained US citizenship as a result but doesn't the wording state that he has to be born in the US?

The problem is essentially that there is no wording! Term used without definition, as we programming geeks would say.

So he is considered a natural born citizen via his mother.

Very likely.

That really shows then just how stupid the whole argument over Obama's birthcert was!

Most certainly. Well, all depending on what any given person considers the "real" facts to have been, in theory. In reality, "blatant racism" has considerably more explanatory power than any legal nuance.

Black Swan

Paleface wrote: »

Ted Cruz officially launches his campaign for POTUS.

Can't see him winning the GOP nomination but he is a tea party favourite so will stir up support in the primaries.

Methinks that he is really running for VP, although declared for president. If he makes a good showing in the GOP primaries, but does not get the nomination, the winner (more than likely Jeb Bush) may pick him for VP to unify their party (Republicans and their Tea Party faction), as well as to appeal to the growing Hispanic voter block.

Paleface wrote: »

His mother is American so he obtained US citizenship as a result but doesn't the wording state that he has to be born in the US?

So he is considered a natural born citizen via his mother. That really shows then just how stupid the whole argument over Obama's birthcert was!

The whole birther issue was obviously a campaign strategy to discredit and draw naive voters from Obama. The Republican GW Bush administration knew that Obama was State of Hawaii born and a US naturally born citizen, or they would have moved to officially disqualify him for the 2008 election. If the Democrat Obama administration does not attempt to officially disqualify Cruz in 2016, then they are in a similar (but not identical) situation as in 2008. Yet again Republican John McCain was not born in the US, rather in US occupied and leased Panama Canal Zone, but no attempt had been made by the Republican GW Bush administration to officially disqualify him either; and for obvious reasons in Republican McCain's case.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Yet again Republican John McCain was not born in the US, rather in US occupied and leased Panama Canal Zone, but no attempt had been made by the Republican GW Bush administration to officially disqualify him either; i.e., and for obvious reasons in Republican McCain's case.

McCain's case is slightly different in that both his parents were US citz, and because his birth was on a US naval air station, which might be regarded differently from the PCZ (which might be regarded differently from a foreign country per se).

But my money would be on all of them being found to be eligible, if it ever went to definitive judgement.

Black Swan

alaimacerc wrote: »

But my money would be on all of them being found to be eligible, if it ever went to definitive judgement.

The spirit and intent of the original US Constitution has been reinterpreted since it was written by various authorities over the years, and some of these authorities may be problematic, especially if they have a bias for one of the party's candidates in this dysfunctional two-party system of government (see John Adams' cautions about a 2-party system).

What needs to happen in terms of presidential qualifications is to pass an amendment to their Constitution that clearly spells out those qualifications, which would require 2/3rds of the states to ratify. I doubt this will ever happen, so such reinterpretations will continue overtime to the benefit of those who can influence those reinterpretations.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

The spirit and intent of the original US Constitution has been reinterpreted since it was written by various authorities over the years, and some of these authorities may be problematic, especially if they have a bias for one of the party's candidates in this dysfunctional two-party system of government (see John Adams' cautions about a 2-party system).

That risk exists, but at present the SC has never ruled on the meaning at all, so the uncertainty is higher than if it had. But yes, "definitive" is never actually thus. One SC could have (say) disqualified McCain, then a later might have ruled Cruz eligible, despite having a weaker claim, simply deciding the earlier ruling was incorrect. Bound by no precedent, etc. That would be unusually drastic, not to say shameless.