[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Dyakovo]

You're the one making the assertions, thus you're the one that needs to back them up. Considering the fact that you're conflating Social Democracy and Socialism despite having the differences shown to you earlier, I'm quite comfortable with just flatly dismissing your unsourced (and in the case of one of them, ever-changing) claims.

There is literally nothing to source in my claims. Do you deny that:
- America has practiced capitalism of one sort or another since its inception?¹
- America has the oldest operating constitution?²
- It is difficult to be a leader if you yourself are following someone who you're supposed to be leading?³
- The government of the UK is not quite the same as it was in the 1300s?⁴
- The constitution contains clauses guaranteeing property rights and giving the government power to provide for commerce?⁵

Everything else is a matter of my interpretation of the constitution and what the US stands for, which I have explained thoroughly and fervently. "No, it isn't" is no legitimate counterargument to any of them, aside from a signal that you have none.

1: Irrelevant.
2: Yes, I do deny that.
3: Has no relevance.
4: Irrelevant. It is the essentially the same as it was in 1707. Also, the Swiss Confederation has been in existence since ~1300.
5: Has no relevance. Social Democracy is not opposed to property rights.

[AiliailiA]

Though I wouldn't credit the claim of the UK to a continuous government since the 1300. They kinda got invaded and the king replaced with a foreign king, when the monarch was clearly "the government".

The UK from 1707 is a pretty strong claim. When the Parliaments of Scotland and England had sufficient sovereignty to declare the two countries in Union it's directly comparable to the formation of the United States.

[Dyakovo]

Though I wouldn't credit the claim of the UK to a continuous government since the 1300. They kinda got invaded and the king replaced with a foreign king, when the monarch was clearly "the government".

The UK from 1707 is a pretty strong claim. When the Parliaments of Scotland and England had sufficient sovereignty to declare the two countries in Union it's directly comparable to the formation of the United States.

Your first paragraph? Yeah, no-one was claiming that.

[Patridam]

2 & 3 together are a double standard. You say market capitalism is intrinsic despite not having a foundation document, but when it comes to the UK the lack of a document is disqualifying?

A lack of socialist-level government intervention in the economy is guaranteed by all but the loosest of interpretations, so it is within the foundation document.

Also, it is not just the lack of a document which disqualifies the UK. If the UK maintained the same principles to this day from 1300, I would consider it the same government and those principles intrinsic to it. If mercantilism was practiced since the Magna Carta until today in the UK, I would consider Mercantilism intrinsic to the British way. But few to no things are the same now as they were in 1300.

There's the takings clause and the commerce clause in the Bill of Rights for your document of market capitalism but they're not very strong evidence. Takings allows the feds to nationalize private property providing only that there is "fair" compensation ... the interpretation of "fair" being a loophole you could sail a battlestar through ... and the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate trade but only between the states.

Overly broad interpretations and loophole abuse, the lot of it. The takings clause was intended to allow eminent domain for public works projects, allowing the government to purchase land for buildings, purchase supplies for civic entities, etc. Not to nationalize industry without fair (i.e. market value) compensation, as would be necessary to achieve socialism.

Here's a thing: there's no prohibition against state governments being socialist. If they all became socialist and the people elected a president and congress that let the states be socialist, the US would be socialist wouldn't it? State's rights!

State governments are not allowed to deny rights as set forth by the amendments, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State's uh.. well, not nationalizing, but state-izing private businesses (to achieve socialism) would be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

[AiliailiA]

4: Irrelevant. It is the essentially the same as it was in 1707. Also, the Swiss Confederation has been in existence since ~1300.

UK: I agree.
Switzerland, 1798: invaded and renamed the Helvetic Republic by France.

[Dyakovo]

2 & 3 together are a double standard. You say market capitalism is intrinsic despite not having a foundation document, but when it comes to the UK the lack of a document is disqualifying?

A lack of socialist.

Social Democracy is not socialism. This has been explained to you already.

[Patridam]

2.) If we're speaking by the letter of the law: 'Social democracy' infringes upon the rights of property as guaranteed by the constitution, and any 'social democratic' government's actions to achieve its ends likely far exceed the rights of the government to intervene in economic matters as set forth by the Commerce Clause. If by spirit; there was no such thing as socialism at the time of the constitution and thus a Social Democracy was certainly not the intention of the founding fathers.
3.) Pardon me. I meant 'oldest constitutional government'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_marino
Constitution dates back to 1600.

Not real country, basically subsidiary to Italy. If we include that, we may as well include some town in Russia that's had the same charter since 1650.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

For those who are wondering to why I consider Jeb Bush to be such a left winger here are the reasons.

He supported the murder of Terry Shiavo, opposes a federal marriage amendment, supports contraceptive and abortion, and supports amnesty for illegals. He also supports affirmative action, opposes English Only, supports common core, hates business, and wants us to "respect" the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore he refuses to call out global warming as a hoax and he supports forcing parents to inject their kids with poisonous chemicals. And he is an evolutionist.

Can anyone confirm this? Because if this is true, it might be the first time I agree with a Republican.

[Dyakovo]

4: Irrelevant. It is the essentially the same as it was in 1707. Also, the Swiss Confederation has been in existence since ~1300.

UK: I agree.
Switzerland, 1798: invaded and renamed the Helvetic Republic by France.

Shoot... I forgot about that...
Okay, scratch Switzerland.

[Patridam]

A lack of socialist.

Social Democracy is not socialism. This has been explained to you already.

He was speaking of socialism.

Social Democracy is still in conflict with the 5th amendment to an extent, but its problems are more to do with the Commerce Clause.

[Dyakovo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_marino
Constitution dates back to 1600.

Not a country, wholly subsidiary to Italy. If we include that, we may as well include some town in Russia that's had the same charter since 1650.

Ummm... Yes, it is a country, and no, it isn't wholly subsidiary to Italy.

[Dyakovo]

Social Democracy is not socialism. This has been explained to you already.

He was speaking of socialism.

Social Democracy is still in conflict with the 5th amendment to an extent, but its problems are more to do with the Commerce Clause.

Who was talking of socialism?
How is it in conflict with the 5th amendment and what problems with the commerce clause? Be specific.

[The Black Forrest]

For those who are wondering to why I consider Jeb Bush to be such a left winger here are the reasons.

He supported the murder of Terry Shiavo, opposes a federal marriage amendment, supports contraceptive and abortion, and supports amnesty for illegals. He also supports affirmative action, opposes English Only, supports common core, hates business, and wants us to "respect" the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore he refuses to call out global warming as a hoax and he supports forcing parents to inject their kids with poisonous chemicals. And he is an evolutionist.

Can anyone confirm this? Because if this is true, it might be the first time I agree with a Republican.

Jeb fought against Shiavo. The so called support was obey the laws.

Jeb tried to circumvent it once by ordering the marshalls to grab her. A judge nixed that.
When it appeared he was going to loose he wanted another investigation on the disproved allegations of abuse by her husband. Vindictive.

His other stances? Probably more election time oriented then true.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jeb_Bush.htm

[Ashmoria]

None of these guys, they've all stuck their foot in their mouth on every single stupid social conservative topic that it's like they don't actually want to win a general election. I think they'd be wise to get Huntsman to throw his name out there, I think he's one of the few Republicans that hasn't taken on a persona dedicated to pleasing the clowns in their base.

how would he get the nomination if the base wont vote for him?

[Ashmoria]

For those who are wondering to why I consider Jeb Bush to be such a left winger here are the reasons.

He supported the murder of Terry Shiavo, opposes a federal marriage amendment, supports contraceptive and abortion, and supports amnesty for illegals. He also supports affirmative action, opposes English Only, supports common core, hates business, and wants us to "respect" the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore he refuses to call out global warming as a hoax and he supports forcing parents to inject their kids with poisonous chemicals. And he is an evolutionist.

Can anyone confirm this? Because if this is true, it might be the first time I agree with a Republican.

well he did support common core....

the rest is mostly bullshit.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Can anyone confirm this? Because if this is true, it might be the first time I agree with a Republican.

well he did support common core....

the rest is mostly bullshit.

Damn. He really got my hopes up.

Off to mooch, I guess.

[AiliailiA]

2 & 3 together are a double standard. You say market capitalism is intrinsic despite not having a foundation document, but when it comes to the UK the lack of a document is disqualifying?

A lack of socialist-level government intervention in the economy is guaranteed by all but the loosest of interpretations, so it is within the foundation document.

Also, it is not just the lack of a document which disqualifies the UK. If the UK maintained the same principles to this day from 1300, I would consider it the same government and those principles intrinsic to it. If mercantilism was practiced since the Magna Carta until today in the UK, I would consider Mercantilism intrinsic to the British way. But few to no things are the same now as they were in 1300.

I don't actually care that much. I'm not British or American and the dick waving is too limp to interest me.

I was just pointing out the double standard of demanding documentary proof only when it suits you, but relying on waffle about principles, intrinsic this and intention that when you don't have a document yourself.

There's the takings clause and the commerce clause in the Bill of Rights for your document of market capitalism but they're not very strong evidence. Takings allows the feds to nationalize private property providing only that there is "fair" compensation ... the interpretation of "fair" being a loophole you could sail a battlestar through ... and the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate trade but only between the states.

Overly broad interpretations and loophole abuse, the lot of it. The takings clause was intended to allow eminent domain for public works projects, allowing the government to purchase land for buildings, purchase supplies for civic entities, etc. Not to nationalize industry without fair (i.e. market value) compensation, as would be necessary to achieve socialism.

You define "fair" as "market value" but those words do not appear in the Constitution.

But I'll play along. My cunning socialist plan as President: I will buy the United States at market value. I will borrow the money!

Here's a thing: there's no prohibition against state governments being socialist. If they all became socialist and the people elected a president and congress that let the states be socialist, the US would be socialist wouldn't it? State's rights!

State governments are not allowed to deny rights as set forth by the amendments, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State's uh.. well, not nationalizing, but state-izing private businesses (to achieve socialism) would be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

Not if they pay "fair" compensation lol.

Ultimately, you'll have to rely on something other than the Bill of Rights because all of that can be amended. Amending the constitution doesn't stop the US being the US, and if the people wanted socialism enough they could change almost all of the Constitution by entirely legal process ... all but Article V.

[The Archregimancy]

The UK from 1707 is a pretty strong claim. When the Parliaments of Scotland and England had sufficient sovereignty to declare the two countries in Union it's directly comparable to the formation of the United States.

The United Kingdom didn't exist until January 1801.

The Acts of Union of 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The post-1800 United Kingdom is a different constitutional entity, though it does claim partial continuity from its predecessor.

Note that the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland was never repealed by Westminster, only amended, so the current post-1922 United Kingdom is the same constitutional entity as founded in 1800, just with different borders in Ireland.


As noted earlier in the page, the world's oldest continuous constitutional government of an existing fully independent sovereign state is San Marino. The Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustris Reipublicae ac Perpetuae Libertatis Terrae Sancti Marini, themselves an update of the early 14th-century Statuti Comunali, date to 1600.

A case could also be made for the Papacy (as opposed to the Vatican), with the College of Cardinals in its current form dating to some point in the 9th century, and the Papal Conclave in its recognisable modern form dating to Gregory IX's Ubi periculum bull of 1274. Much here depends on whether you consider the Catholic Church to be a 'government' separately from its temporal territory.

Though not directly relevant to the basic point, the longest-lasting - but no longer extant - wholly unmodified constitutional government was probably the Republic of Venice, where the system of electing the Doge went unchanged between 1268 and the fall of the Republic in 1797; this was itself a modification of the system put in place in 1172.

It's always fun outlining the Venetian electoral system, so....

The electorate "chose thirty of their own number [by lot]. The second [lot] was used to reduce the thirty to nine, and the nine would then vote for forty, each of whom was to receive at least seven nominations. The forty would then be reduced, again by lot, to twelve, whose task was to vote for twenty-five, of whom each this time required nine votes, The twenty-five were in turn reduced to another nine; the nine voted for forty-five, with a minimum of seven votes each, and from these the ballotino* picked out the names of eleven. The eleven now voted for forty-one - nine or more votes each - and it was these forty-one who were to elect the Doge." (Norwich 1989: 166)

<snip>

*The 'ballotino' was the person taking lots, chosen as follows: prior to the election, the youngest member of the Council would pray at St. Mark's, and upon leaving the basilica would select the first small boy he came across.

Edit:
I'd forgotten that the Venetian Council of Ten - the final major branch of the Venetian constitution - was only founded in 1310; that's still 487 years of continuous constitutional government, and still ahead of San Marino.

[Risottia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_marino
Constitution dates back to 1600.

Not real country, basically subsidiary to Italy.

And here we have a rather severe case of irejectyourealityandsubstitutemyopinionitis.

[AiliailiA]

The UK from 1707 is a pretty strong claim. When the Parliaments of Scotland and England had sufficient sovereignty to declare the two countries in Union it's directly comparable to the formation of the United States.

The United Kingdom didn't exist until January 1801.

The Acts of Union of 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The post-1800 United Kingdom is a different constitutional entity, though it does claim partial continuity from its predecessor.

Note that the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland was never repealed by Westminster, only amended, so the current post-1922 United Kingdom is the same constitutional entity as founded in 1800, just with different borders in Ireland.

Reading both wikipedia pages, I don't see any change besides changing the name and admitting another nation?

I could probably find out by reading the acts themselves, but it's easier to just ask you.

[The United Dark Republic]

Some voters make that a primary concern, but a majority of Americans in 2012 (And it looks like 2016) still say the economy is a major concern. Even though the government continues to exaggerate that we have a 5% (Approximate) unemployment rate.

Something does not have to be a primary concern to turn voters off from a party, hence why I said while it might not get them to vote for a party, it might get them to vote against a party or to not vote at all.

I understand your statement entirely, I was simply elaborating and taking it another step farther.

[Ifreann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_marino
Constitution dates back to 1600.

Not real country, basically subsidiary to Italy. If we include that, we may as well include some town in Russia that's had the same charter since 1650.

San Marino is in the Council of Europe and the UN. How many Russian towns can say that?

---

The UK from 1707 is a pretty strong claim. When the Parliaments of Scotland and England had sufficient sovereignty to declare the two countries in Union it's directly comparable to the formation of the United States.

The United Kingdom didn't exist until January 1801.

The Acts of Union of 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The post-1800 United Kingdom is a different constitutional entity, though it does claim partial continuity from its predecessor.

Note that the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland was never repealed by Westminster, only amended, so the current post-1922 United Kingdom is the same constitutional entity as founded in 1800, just with different borders in Ireland.


As noted earlier in the page, the world's oldest continuous constitutional government of an existing fully independent sovereign state is San Marino. The Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustris Reipublicae ac Perpetuae Libertatis Terrae Sancti Marini, themselves an update of the early 14th-century Statuti Comunali, date to 1600.

A case could also be made for the Papacy (as opposed to the Vatican), with the College of Cardinals in its current form dating to some point in the 9th century, and the Papal Conclave in its recognisable modern form dating to Gregory IX's Ubi periculum bull of 1274. Much here depends on whether you consider the Catholic Church to be a 'government' separately from its temporal territory.

Though not directly relevant to the basic point, the longest-lasting - but no longer extant - wholly unmodified constitutional government was probably the Republic of Venice, where the system of electing the Doge went unchanged between 1268 and the fall of the Republic in 1797; this was itself a modification of the system put in place in 1172.

It's always fun outlining the Venetian electoral system, so....

The electorate "chose thirty of their own number [by lot]. The second [lot] was used to reduce the thirty to nine, and the nine would then vote for forty, each of whom was to receive at least seven nominations. The forty would then be reduced, again by lot, to twelve, whose task was to vote for twenty-five, of whom each this time required nine votes, The twenty-five were in turn reduced to another nine; the nine voted for forty-five, with a minimum of seven votes each, and from these the ballotino* picked out the names of eleven. The eleven now voted for forty-one - nine or more votes each - and it was these forty-one who were to elect the Doge." (Norwich 1989: 166)

<snip>

*The 'ballotino' was the person taking lots, chosen as follows: prior to the election, the youngest member of the Council would pray at St. Mark's, and upon leaving the basilica would select the first small boy he came across.

Edit:
I'd forgotten that the Venetian Council of Ten - the final major branch of the Venetian constitution - was only founded in 1310; that's still 487 years of continuous constitutional government, and still ahead of San Marino.

No wonder that Venetian government lasted so long. It probably took 250 years just to figure out who was in the government.

[Patridam]

Fine, whatever, the US government's age vs. tiny European republics isn't wholly relevant. Suffice to say that the US constitution is very old and the country has maintained its existence and grown so much thanks to intrinsic principles, methods, and values.

[Ifreann]

Fine, whatever, the US government's age vs. tiny European republics isn't wholly relevant. Suffice to say that the US constitution is very old and the country has maintained its existence and grown so much thanks to intrinsic principles, methods, and values.

Since other countries have had governments lasting longer, as long, and almost as long, then one must wonder what, exactly, is so special about the US.

[Patridam]

Fine, whatever, the US government's age vs. tiny European republics isn't wholly relevant. Suffice to say that the US constitution is very old and the country has maintained its existence and grown so much thanks to intrinsic principles, methods, and values.

Since other countries have had governments lasting longer, as long, and almost as long, then one must wonder what, exactly, is so special about the US.

Do those other countries not have their own principles and values that guide their people and government?