2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'm not comfortable with stop and frisk, Terry, or any of that.  Might be legal but I don't think it should be -- giving a cop the ability to search someone just because they think the person might be dangerous (with no objective qualification for that thought) is giving the police too much power to be arbitrary bullies.  

[Kalbear]

Huh. No one took it that way. Everyone who read it took it as a praise of it and its effectiveness.

Might want to work on that.

[Martell Spy]

MSNBC And New Hampshire Union Leader Plan Rogue Democratic Debate

But so far only O'Malley's definitely coming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/msnbc-union-leader-new-hampshire-debate_us_56a7dbeae4b01a3ed12433b1?ir=Politics&section=us_politics&utm_hp_ref=politics

 

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Huh. No one took it that way. Everyone who read it took it as a praise of it and its effectiveness.

Might want to work on that.

How on earth do you know what everyone is thinking?  I thought that Nestor made it perfectly clear that he was on the fence about the effectiveness of stop and frisk.  Here's a quote of one of his posts that you responded to:

Quote

Well, to be clear, I am not sure that "stop and frisk" actually works at reducing crime generally, or violent crime specifically. It's an aggressive form of "broken window" policing, and the jury is still more or less out on whether that works as a philosophy of policing. We just don't have the kind of evidence we would want to really evaluate whether or not something like stop and frisk works, and a lot of arguments, anecdote, and questionable parsing of data substituting for the kind of evidence we would actually want. But I do believe that the people pushing stop and frisk do believe that it actually works, and that this belief is not crazy. 

And when you talk about stop and frisk, there are generally two parallel strands of argument that occasionally intersect. The first is whether it's unfairly discriminatory. The second is whether it actually works. But I am going to answer this question by taking the efficacy question out of it. If stop and frisk actually doesn't work at reducing crime, and it can be definitively shown that it does not, then it shouldn't be used.

How do you read the first sentence and conclude that he is praising the effectiveness of stop and frisk?  No wonder all your posts were essentially nonresponsive.  You are arguing against a point he's never made.

[Kalbear]

Except you took the last paragraph out, which talks about nothing but how much he thinks it's worth it. One small sentence isn't the same as a whole bunch of wrong stuff.

Furthermore, he only talks about it as far as it's efficacy, not its moral value. As long as the cooked stats work, he's good with it, at least so he says.

And I read minds. Clearly I couldn't read yours.

[Mudguard]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Except you took the last paragraph out, which talks about nothing but how much he thinks it's worth it. One small sentence isn't the same as a whole bunch of wrong stuff.

Furthermore, he only talks about it as far as it's efficacy, not its moral value. As long as the cooked stats work, he's good with it, at least so he says.

 

And I read minds. Clearly I couldn't read yours.

Come on.  It's a lot more than just one sentence.  Those entire two paragraphs make it very clear.  Let me bold some more sentences for you.

Quote

Well, to be clear, I am not sure that "stop and frisk" actually works at reducing crime generally, or violent crime specifically. It's an aggressive form of "broken window" policing, and the jury is still more or less out on whether that works as a philosophy of policing. We just don't have the kind of evidence we would want to really evaluate whether or not something like stop and frisk works, and a lot of arguments, anecdote, and questionable parsing of data substituting for the kind of evidence we would actually want. But I do believe that the people pushing stop and frisk do believe that it actually works, and that this belief is not crazy. 

And when you talk about stop and frisk, there are generally two parallel strands of argument that occasionally intersect. The first is whether it's unfairly discriminatory. The second is whether it actually works. But I am going to answer this question by taking the efficacy question out of it. If stop and frisk actually doesn't work at reducing crime, and it can be definitively shown that it does not, then it shouldn't be used.

Each one of these sentences makes it clear that he's not asserting that stop and frisk is effective.  And the third paragraph makes it clear that he's only OK with the disproportionate targeting if in fact stop and frisk does work.  Sorry, but you are failing to comprehend any part of that post.

[karaddin]

It's also perfectly possible to say that even if it does work, it's still not OK which is probably the position a lot of us are coming from in addition to our belief that the evidence shows it does not.

[Kalbear]

I was arguing about both the efficacy and the morality of it, as was clear in my first post after it. Nestor says nothing about the morality of it and even defends the actions of it based on dubious statistical manipulation.

Does nestor say anywhere about its morality? Nope. Heck, doesn't even claim it is legal. All he cares about is the efficacy, which he then goes way out of the way to attempt to justify.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

The discussion on Stop-and-frisk and general police work has wandered far enough in this thread. Please move it to the police thread after this point, and keep the discussion here focused on the election of 2016.

Thank you.

[/mod hat]

[Bonesy]

So now there will be another Democratic debate.

You all probably know how cynical I feel about this.

Go!

[TrackerNeil]

5 hours ago, Bonesy said:

So now there will be another Democratic debate.

You all probably know how cynical I feel about this.

Go!

What's the problem? We're getting yet another chance to see the Democratic contenders in action.

[Commodore]

hoping for Cruz vs. Sanders, that's the matchup we need

the one we deserve is probably Clinton/Trump

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Could someone who is well educated on Cruz birtherism please take me through it (with reputable analysis)?  Read one article in Slate (which has its own biases) that suggested that there really might be something too it, but honestly haven't spent a ton of time analyzing it/reading less editorialized content on the subject. (For the record, couldn't vote for the man in any event, so really want to understand from an intellectual curiosity point of view).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ToL,

It requires that "Natural Born Citizen" mean "born inside the physical territory of the US".  Few believe that is all that means.

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Could someone who is well educated on Cruz birtherism please take me through it (with reputable analysis)?  Read one article in Slate (which has its own biases) that suggested that there really might be something too it, but honestly haven't spent a ton of time analyzing it/reading less editorialized content on the subject. (For the record, couldn't vote for the man in any event, so really want to understand from an intellectual curiosity point of view).

Basically it goes back to English common law as far as what constitutes a 'natural born citizen'.  The basic premise is that one must be born on US soil in order to be considered 'natural born'.  The argument is that Cruz is a naturalized citizen, being a natural born Canadian; and therefore ineligible to be President.  It's also muddier because one of his parents was not a citizen.  A few cases have been heard on it and according to those cases, he would be ineligible.  With that being said, it is very likely that if he does get the nomination that this would get its own ruling on the matter.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Here's an argument that Cruz is a natural born citizen:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

And a response:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Personally, while I find this issue somewhat interesting, it mostly serves to highlight the absurdity of so much of what we're bound to by a provincial 18th century document. From the first article:

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”

It's a concern that was overly-paranoid in its own time, and that we mock as tinfoil hattery when it's raised today (Obama is a Manchurian candidate!)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Personally, while I find this issue somewhat interesting, it mostly serves to highlight the absurdity of so much of what we're bound to by a provincial 18th century document.

Then let's call a convention and update it.  Else we're bound by what exists or all law is meaningless.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 hours ago, Shryke said:

 

I hate you, quote button!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

hoping for Cruz vs. Sanders, that's the matchup we need

the one we deserve is probably Clinton/Trump

Cruz would lose that match up badly. You'd have an anti-Wall St candidate verse Goldman Sach's puppet.

Seriously, why do you love Cruz so much? He's a snake oil salesman.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Cruz would lose that match up badly. You'd have an anti-Wall St candidate verse Goldman Sach's puppet.

Seriously, why do you love Cruz so much? He's a snake oil salesman.

Also, considering how much his fellow GOP senators hate Cruz, I think he'd actually get less done than most of the other Republican candidates. Personal relationships matter a lot in Washington, and he doesn't have them with anyone other than a couple dozen House members. I'm sure he'd get a big tax cut package through, but the more detailed stuff Republicans want, like rolling back various regulations, block-granting Medicaid, turning Medicare into a voucher program, etc. I think he'd get into a lot of fights with McConnell and Ryan about the best ways to do those things and end up not accomplishing nearly as much as he wants. No doubt an awful lot would get done, but not the full amount that could get done if time wasn't wasted trying to smooth over those personal disagreements.

From the standpoint of advancing the Republican agenda as much as possible, I'd think the most effective option would probably be Rubio. He doesn't have great relationships in DC either, but they're certainly better than Cruz's, and on policy he really is just as conservative as Cruz. And he'd probably be happy to just sign every piece of conservative legislation that McConnell and Ryan give to him.

The other candidates are probably all too moderate on at least a couple issues, even though they'd still push big chunks of conservative policy forward. Although I suppose if someone only cared about social issues and not economy policy, someone like Huckabee or Santorum may get the most done there.