US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2634

On December 10 2015 06:27 cLutZ wrote:
No its a stream of consciousness description of "mismatch" which is a rigorous social science theory probably discussed in the majority of the briefs.

On December 10 2015 06:35 Mohdoo wrote:


I was thinking the same thing. I'd vote for him over Sanders any day of the week. A reasonable, well accomplished guy with a solid record.

It's really weird that we require candidates to have been born here. What a strange requirement.

On December 10 2015 06:40 KwarK wrote:

Not really. The founders would have likely recalled that the Prince of Wales was an English royal appointment. It's a guarantee against rule by proxy.

On December 10 2015 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump/Scalia 2016?

edit:


I guess I was more so meaning it is weird that we still have that rule in place. There is zero benefit to that policy current day. Or even in the last 100 years.

On December 10 2015 06:45 Plansix wrote:

No reason to amend the Constitution to remove it, so it remains the rule. It will likely never be removed.

On December 10 2015 06:46 m4ini wrote:
As an outsider (had to read up on AA briefly, no such thing here).. My first thought was "wow, that's condescending". My second thought was "that might actually be racist".

Yes, a minority profits from it, and possibly good intentions - that doesn't make it "not racist", doesn't it? Or am i misunderstanding the concept of AA?

On December 10 2015 06:47 Mohdoo wrote:


When it comes to placing a restriction, isn't it usually about justifying the restriction, rather than justifying the absence of a restriction? Isn't a larger pool of candidates a reason to amend it? It's not like they were trying to make sure people who moved here when they were 6 could not be president. They were worried about a very specific scenario that is 100% impossible now.

On December 10 2015 06:51 ragz_gt wrote:


It kind of is on its own, but when you acknowledge systemic racial inequality built in US society, you can understand it better. It's more of a bandaid solution, but since there is no quick cure for the underlying issue it is a mitigating recourse.

On December 10 2015 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:


Yup, agreed. I still think Rubio is the only GOP candidate with a chance in 2016. He's gonna have to make a miracle happen, though.

On December 10 2015 06:52 Plansix wrote:

Do you know the process required to amended/change Constitution? Because that is where the requirements are there is only one way to change them. The political reality is that congress will likely never vote to expand the field to Americans not born in this country because most of them already meet the requirements and the public isn't asking for it.

The US is set to ban personal care products that contain microbeads after the House of Representatives approved a bill that would phase out the environmentally-harmful items.

The bill, which had been backed by a bipartisan committee, will now go to the Senate for approval.

The Microbead Free Waters Act would start the phase-out of the tiny pieces of plastic found in soap, toothpaste and body washes beginning 1 July 2017. Microbeads can flow into rivers, lakes and streams where, they can be mistaken for food by fish. This can lead to the spread of pollutants throughout the food chain, including to humans.

Microbeads are typically smaller than a pinhead but are causing significant problems in the Great Lakes. Research conducted in 2013 by the State University of New York found that the lakes were riddled with microbeads, with Lake Ontario containing an estimated 1.1m plastic particles per square kilometer.

Ohio, which has most of the Lake Erie shoreline, is considering microbead legislation, as is Michigan. Illinois became the first state to ban the sale of such products in 2014, with California recently finalising a bill to phase out microbeads by 2020.

Research by Oregon State University found that a stunning 8tn microbeads a day were being emitted into bodies of water in the US. This plastic adds to the vast quantity floating throughout the world’s oceans, with a recent study finding that up to 90% of the planet’s seabirds have pieces of plastic in their guts.

On December 10 2015 06:36 cLutZ wrote:
I actually don't know why Scalia cited scientists (unless it was part of a brief he recently read). The most rigorous study I remember related to the UC system, law students, and bar pass rates. After they passed the constitutional amendment, minority students who would have gone to UCBerkley or UCLA under the old system, but ended at a T2 school (based on test scores, etc) actually passed the California bar at a higher rate.

Trump's Islamophobia is a central feature of his appeal to his supporters (at least in NC):

-67% of his voters support a national database of Muslims in the United States, to only 14% opposed to it.

-62% believe his claims that thousands of Arabs cheered in New Jersey when the WorldTrade Center collapsed, to only 15% who don't believe that.

-51% want to see the Mosques in the country shut down, to only 16% against that.

-And only 24% of Trump supporters in the state even think Islam should be legal at all in
the United States, to 44% who think it shouldn't be.

Although these ideas are certainly most commonly held by Trump supporters, they're not
unique within the North Carolina GOP base:

-Overall 48% want a national database of Muslims to 33% who are opposed. Ted Cruz's (43/31) and Marco Rubio's supporters (38/36) join Trump's in their support for that idea while Carson's (34/51) are opposed.

-Overall 42% think thousands of Arabs cheered in New Jersey on 9/11 to 26% who don't think that happened. Cruz supporters (47/12) and Carson supporters narrowly (27/22) agree with Trump's that that happened while Rubio's (31/45) don't think it did.

-Overall 35% want to shut down the mosques in the United States to 33% who are opposed. Cruz supporters (41/28) again join Trump's in supporting that while Carson's (26/34) and Rubio's (29/45) are opposed.

-GOP voters as a whole (41/32) do at least think Islam should be legal in the United States. Trump's the only major candidate whose supporters are against that- Cruz's (37/30), Carson's (52/27), and Rubio's (52/16) all think Islam should be allowed.

On December 10 2015 05:37 frazzle wrote:

The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.