|
DrewkroDleman posted:I know this was on the last page and a little off topic but I got really pissed when I got to Cuba's aid. What, did you really think that human lives were more important than politics?
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
laughterhouse five posted:What, did you really think that human lives were more important than politics? Better dead than red, right New Orleans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
laughterhouse five posted:What, did you really think that human lives were more important than politics? Public Health and Safety, citizen. Those Cubans would probably send in poisoned cigars and rum. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
I recently learned that it is illegal for an American Citizen to purchase a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. That situation strikes me as bizarre. How can US law control my behavior in other national jurisdictions? We should have ended the embargo in 1990 after the fall of Communism. Just declared victory and been done with it. What does the US gain from the embargo? We're not going to "win", and we've supported much worse regimes than Castro's. It's such a strange relic of the Cold War.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I recently learned that it is illegal for an American Citizen to purchase a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. That situation strikes me as bizarre. How can US law control my behavior in other national jurisdictions? There are plenty of cases like that, where as an American citizen you fall under U.S. jurisdiction no matter where you are. The same principle apply to sex tourism laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Southern Florida votes are lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:32
|
|
laughterhouse five posted:There are plenty of cases like that, where as an American citizen you fall under U.S. jurisdiction no matter where you are. It still seems strange to me. As a Soldier I fall under the military's laws anywhere I go, but that's due to my contract and the rules I've sworn to follow. That's a much different relationship with authority than being a citizen of a country. As far as sexual tourism, it's wrong to go and abuse children, but if the criminal act didn't occur within the US, how can the US claim jurisdiction?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:As far as sexual tourism, it's wrong to go and abuse children, but if the criminal act didn't occur within the US, how can the US claim jurisdiction? It's illegal in many states to cross state lines with the intent to have sex with a minor. Similarly I believe it is illegal to cross the US national border with the intent to have sex with a minor. Proving intent is usually pretty difficult, but it's been successfully done in cases like these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 19:01
|
|
ErIog posted:It's illegal in many states to cross state lines with the intent to have sex with a minor. Similarly I believe it is illegal to cross the US national border with the intent to have sex with a minor. Proving intent is usually pretty difficult, but it's been successfully done in cases like these. So, if it's against the law in Iowa to cross the Iowa-Minnesota border with the intent of having sex with a minor, that would apply to Iowa residents going into Minnesota, or would it apply to Minnesota residents coming into Iowa? I would think that Iowa's jurisdiction ends at the state line. Could Iowa make a law against crossing state lines with the intent of having sex with a prostitute and prosecute me if I went to Nevada or Germany and did so? There is the Mann Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_act, but that's a Federal Law covering crimes within the US.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, if it's against the law in Iowa to cross the Iowa-Minnesota border with the intent of having sex with a minor, that would apply to Iowa residents going into Minnesota, or would it apply to Minnesota residents coming into Iowa? I'm pretty sure that law would apply to Iowa residents in Minnesota, since the latter case would be covered under Iowa's normal jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
The most basic way to think about this is that you are a citizen of a country and you are bound by it's law because you are a citizen. You (theoretically at least) receive all the benefits of the country as well. Mainly, it is used for making sure you don't say stupid things like well murder is legal in this country, so you can't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
DrewkroDleman posted:I know this was on the last page and a little off topic but I got really pissed when I got to Cuba's aid. Hey, it's a fine tradition of bickery going both ways: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/168987.stm BBC posted:Friday, September 11, 1998 Published at 07:15 GMT 08:15 UK
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I recently learned that it is illegal for an American Citizen to purchase a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. What if you're in international waters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Narbo posted:What if you're in international waters? I am pretty sure that falls under the "anywhere in the world" part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:I am pretty sure that falls under the "anywhere in the world" part. what if you were on the moon? Now what Mr SmartyPants? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:I am pretty sure that falls under the "anywhere in the world" part. What about the moon? ^^drat you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:I am pretty sure that falls under the "anywhere in the world" part. I thought there were no rules in international waters and that's why sailors can get gay married on an aircraft carrier (but it doesn't count when you get back to land).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Narbo posted:I thought there were no rules in international waters and that's why sailors can get gay married on an aircraft carrier (but it doesn't count when you get back to land). So you gave an example of something that happened that is non-binding. Again, it's fairly simple you are ruled by the citizenship of the country you claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Well then I am a citizen of the international water nation Atlantis, where everyone is gay married and smokes cigars .
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Narbo posted:Well then I am a citizen of the international water nation Atlantis, where everyone is gay married and smokes cigars I am starting to think you are making things up...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I recently learned that it is illegal for an American Citizen to purchase a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. That situation strikes me as bizarre. How can US law control my behavior in other national jurisdictions? There's a lot of Cuban-Americans in Florida who don't like Castro, and Florida is the 4th most valuable state in the electoral college. No, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 23:48
|
|
Neptr posted:There's a lot of Cuban-Americans in Florida who don't like Castro, and Florida is the 4th most valuable state in the electoral college. Can we just get rid of the electoral college already?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Can we just get rid of the electoral college already? We all know college is just full of LIEberal elitists anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
I`m not well-acquainted with the American electoral process... What's the Electoral college? Is it a thing where citizen vote for someone else to vote for them instead of just voting for a candidate and tallying all the votes up, giving some states more weight when it comes to votes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I`m not well-acquainted with the American electoral process... Every state is worth a certain value that equals the number of reps and senators it has. RI has 4 for example, MA 12, TX 34(?). In most states if you win the majority of votes in state you get the state's value. Get 270 electoral votes and win. It is a way to protect smaller states from being over run by bigger states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Every state is worth a certain value that equals the number of reps and senators it has. RI has 4 for example, MA 12, TX 34(?). In most states if you win the majority of votes in state you get the state's value. Get 270 electoral votes and win. I don't think I understand the purpose of that. It just seems fairer to go with a straight tally. It makes little sense to me that if there's a 51%/49% split, it turns into a 100%/0%. (Maybe I misunderstand, though) How does that protect anyone but the majority in a state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I don't think I understand the purpose of that. It just seems fairer to go with a straight tally. It makes little sense to me that if there's a 51%/49% split, it turns into a 100%/0%. (Maybe I misunderstand, though) More like lower population states have a bigger effect on the election. Off the top of my head Massachusetts has 6 million people, Maine has 1 million. Maine gets 4 votes, Mass. gets 12. So instead of a 6:1 advantage, Mass now only has has a 3:1 advantage. It allows rural states to have a say in the government and have presidents tailor some policy towards them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I don't think I understand the purpose of that. It just seems fairer to go with a straight tally. It makes little sense to me that if there's a 51%/49% split, it turns into a 100%/0%. (Maybe I misunderstand, though) You understand perfectly. It's why Gore won the popular vote, and Bush won the electoral vote by a landslide. Gore had the electoral lead, but Bush won Florida by 500 votes, so ALL of Florida's votes then went to Bush, and Bush ended up winning. Even though, in total, far more people voted for Gore. It's basically a disgrace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:More like lower population states have a bigger effect on the election. Off the top of my head Massachusetts has 6 million people, Maine has 1 million. Maine gets 4 votes, Mass. gets 12. So instead of a 6:1 advantage, Mass now only has has a 3:1 advantage. It allows rural states to have a say in the government and have presidents tailor some policy towards them. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to have the presidential elections work independently of state elections? I would assume the rural states would have a lot more luck getting a say with a statesman than by helping one president over the other... Then again, I guess this is really all about ways to make it easier for presidential candidates to get votes rather than to have "fairer" elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to have the presidential elections work independently of state elections? I would assume the rural states would have a lot more luck getting a say with a statesman than by helping one president over the other... Surprisingly, states are decent at handling elections and creates a clear delineation of who is charge and who to sue if something goes wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to have the presidential elections work independently of state elections? I would assume the rural states would have a lot more luck getting a say with a statesman than by helping one president over the other... Sure, it'd make a lot more sense. But America's fundamental law (the constitution) is all but impossible to change. I find it a little bizarre that the basic mechanics of government are fixed in place by an experimental 18th century constitution, but I don't see what you can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Well, for one you can amend it. VVV Well, that would be the same thing it took to amend the constitution every other time. I'll be here all night if anyone else needs help. nsaP fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Well, for one you can amend it. I can't imagine what it would take to amend the constitution in our time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Sure, it'd make a lot more sense. But America's fundamental law (the constitution) is all but impossible to change. I find it a little bizarre that the basic mechanics of government are fixed in place by an experimental 18th century constitution, but I don't see what you can do about it. An interesting argument, since the constitution has been amended 16 times since the 18th century. (The first amendment to be enacted in the 19th century was a revision of the Electoral College: Amendment XII) Edit: beaten, and yeah trying to get any amendment passed in the current climate of constitutional fetishism would be hilariously futile Plank Walker fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Plank Walker posted:Edit: beaten, and yeah trying to get any amendment passed in the current climate of constitutional fetishism would be hilariously futile No kidding. That was my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Aren't there one or two states that distribute their electoral votes proportionally instead of going all or nothing? Or am I thinking of primaries? Either way, I'm not sure if it would be easier to amend the constitution or encourage change at the state level, since say, once a blue state went proportional it would be in the Republican's interest to keep a red state all or nothing, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
^^^ Nebraska distributes their votes proportionately, because the Lincoln/Omaha metro area was tired of getting lumped in with the rural western part of the state (or vice versa). To contribute, just saw a blog post that's not crazy and really drat refreshing. Warning: was written by a religious person, so there is a bit of religion at the end. But it's a response to solider-worship, so it's definitely reasonable. quote:This is the Son of God. These are Men in Uniform. Don’t Confuse the Two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
Childlike Empress posted:^^^ Nebraska distributes their votes proportionately, because the Lincoln/Omaha metro area was tired of getting lumped in with the rural western part of the state (or vice versa).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
quote:It started with the general theme of “We Support Our Troops.” Fine. I do, too. If we’re going to send them out there, regardless of whether we support the specific political agenda that sent them, we should make sure they have what they need, where and when they need it. I think this is pretty well put.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Childlike Empress posted:^^^ Nebraska distributes their votes proportionately, because the Lincoln/Omaha metro area was tired of getting lumped in with the rural western part of the state (or vice versa). First great email! Secondly, Nebraska isn't exactly proportional. Each district is voted on separately, and whoever wins the majority in the state gets the two senate votes. Exactly like Maine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:55
|
|