Can Santorum win?

[geetrue]

I have a seed thought, sort of, on Santorum ...

Really stepping out on faith here that Santorum will win ...

The Lord said that "after Lent Santorum will win"

This would be really funny due to all of the biggies throwing their weight behind Romney,
but Romney still only has half what he needs to sew up the nomination.

What a turn around if true ... I for one do not think Romney can beat
Obama just too many things to go wrong for wrong way thinkers.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324756/20120405/santorum-pressed-quit-huddles-backers.htm


needs 1,144 delegates required to win the nomination at the Republican convention in August. CNN estimates that Romney has 657 delegates, over 200 more than the combined total for Santorum and Gingrich, who has polled in the single digits ...

[Platapus]

I would not vote for Santorum. I like my governments secular and I have a suspicion that Santorum is a dominionist.

[Gargamel]

I hope sanatorium does win so that Obama is a shoe in.

[GoldenRivet]

I prefer my governments small, and out of the business of "business"... if an empty shoe box runs against BO... I'd vote for it just to vote against him.

and nearly every non race oriented voter i know who voted for BO last time says they will not be repeating that mistake this time.

lets hope we can send that America hating president packing

[CaptainHaplo]

I'd prefer Newt, but I would rather have Santorum than Romney. I'll vote Romney if I have to - but come primary day my vote goes to Newt regardless. I will vote for the best man for the job - and in the primary that is Newt. In the general, its whoever else is running besides Obama.

[Skybird]

Plague or cholera? Anthrax or Ebola? Choose your poison, die self-determined and free!

[Catfish]

I prefer my governments small, and out of the business of "business"... [...]

I am afraid your government and "business" are the same.

[mookiemookie]

People are getting fed up with politicians banging the religion drum. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-watcher-more-americans-spurn-faith-talk-by-politicians/2012/03/07/gIQAFRwzTS_blog.html) The takeover of the Republican Party by the religious right 20 years ago has had horrible effects on this country and has turned the party into a laughingstock and the butt of jokes. The GOP "saints" like Reagan that the Sarah Palins of the world love to bring up and reference wouldn't recognize today's Republican party, and would be spurned by the hard right religious fundamentalists today.

Santorum has a snowball's chance to win the GOP nomination, and less of a chance to win the general election. Thankfully.

[Takeda Shingen]

Clearly Santorum can't with the primaries, let alone the general election. Of course, none of the GOP candidates fare well in GE polls. Any potential Republican candidates that people might have been excited over have, for some reason, decided to sit this one out. It's like the GOP is making a really half-hearted effort this time around. Not sure what that's all about. :-?

To be honest, it could likely be what mookie said. I think that Team R has realized that it's emphasis on social conservatism isn't gaining the traction that it used to and that the GOP is still in the process of transforming it's image. In the meantime, you get candidates like these.

[Platapus]

It's like the GOP is making a really half-hearted effort this time around. Not sure what that's all about. :-?


It is difficult to unseat the incumbent. In recent history we had Bush Sr and Carter. Ford is a unique case. Throughout our history we have had nine one term presidents, albeit not all were not reelected. That's 20 percent. If I remember my calculus, that would mean that about 80% of presidents get reelected. Those are pretty good odds.

I think it is quite logical for the GOP to keep some of their stars on deck for 2016 when it is an even field. Sure the GOP has to put someone in, but why risk a star when they are already facing the up-hill battle to unseat the incumbent?

There is still a stigma about losing an election. What major GOP star will risk being defeated by the incumbent? So you send in your JV and hope for a "20%" chance of unseating the incumbent (hey it happens) but then plan on bringing out the big guns in '16.

At least that's what I tell myself. I would hate to think that Romney and Santorium ARE the big GOP stars. :wah:.

RNC please tell me these are your JV and that you have some legitimate candidates lined up for 2016. :DL

[u crank]

At least that's what I tell myself. I would hate to think that Romney and Santorium ARE the big GOP stars. :wah:.

RNC please tell me these are your JV and that you have some legitimate candidates lined up for 2016. :DL

Now that's a sad possibility.:cry:

[August]

Second term presidents are lame ducks as soon as the polls close. I'd rather see the GoP win Congress. It's going to take legislative action to undo the mess he's made.

[vienna]

I think it is quite logical for the GOP to keep some of their stars on deck for 2016 when it is an even field. Sure the GOP has to put someone in, but why risk a star when they are already facing the up-hill battle to unseat the incumbent?

There is still a stigma about losing an election. What major GOP star will risk being defeated by the incumbent? So you send in your JV and hope for a "20%" chance of unseating the incumbent (hey it happens) but then plan on bringing out the big guns in '16.


Agreed with this. You can go back to Reagan when he was Governor of California. At the time he left office, there were no term limits; he could have run for a 3rd term. However, his Democratic opponent was Jerry Brown, son of a popular former Governor, Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, and he had much residual goodwill from his father's name. Also, Reagan had been wearing very thin on the electorate of California; there was a very, very good chance Reagan would lose and lose big if he ran for another term. Since Reagan had his sights set on the White House, a loss would be harmful to his attempt to get the GOP nomination, and a really big loss would have been almost cretainly fatal to his bid. So Reagan declined to run and concentrated on a White House bid with the GOP. This is probably what some of the better possible GOP candidates are doing. As pointrd out in an earlier post, 2016 will be a level field and there is a better chance to win without riunning against an incumbent...

Two interesting side notes: Reagan didn't decide to not run until late in his 2nd term. His supporters had banded together to fund and build a new, lavish Governor's mansion for Reagan's expected 3rd term. After Reagan bailed, the new Governor, Jerry Brown, who had campaigned on a platform of Spartan government spending, refused to live in the new mansion, instead opting for a rather sparse apartment. The mansion went unused for quite some time, became a local symbol of the excesses of the Regan governorship, and was ulimately sold by the state...

Secondly, Jerry Brown served as Governor after Reagan, replacing in office a former actor: in 2010, Jerry Brown was again elected as Governor, replacing in office a former actor, Arnold Schwartzenegger...

...

[Oberon]

Second term presidents are lame ducks as soon as the polls close. I'd rather see the GoP win Congress. It's going to take legislative action to undo the mess he's made.

That's most likely what will happen, the Republicans will fail the elections but do well in Congress. They just haven't got a strong front-runner...they're in their 'wilderness years' following Bush Jr, but I reckon by 2016 they'll be back.

[vienna]

...they're in their 'wilderness years' following Bush Jr, but I reckon by 2016 they'll be back.


Are you saying Dubbya led them into the wilderness? :DL

...

[Rilder]

Are you saying Dubbya led them into the wilderness? :DL

...

I hear what your saying, Cheney accidentally shot all the sane republican candidates while on trip into the wilderness and the GoP only has the nutjobs left. :rotfl2:

[August]

Are you saying Dubbya led them into the wilderness? :DL

...

Are you saying Dubbya is Moses?

[vienna]

Are you saying Dubbya is Moses?

I don't think so: maybe "Brian"...

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2011/01/26/Life-of-Brian-for-Kirsty-blog.jpg

...

[Oberon]

George W. Bush was walking through an airport last week, when he saw an old man with white hair, a long white beard, wearing a long white robe and holding a staff. He walked up to the man, who was staring at the ceiling, and "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?"
The man stood perfectly still and continued to stare at the ceiling, saying nothing. Again, George W. asked, a little louder this time, "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?" Again, the old man stared at the ceiling motionless without saying a word. George W. tried a third time, louder yet. "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?" Again, no movement or words from the old man. He continued to stare at the ceiling.
One of George W's aides asked him if there was a problem, and George W. said, "Either this man is deaf or extremely rude. I have asked him three times if he was Moses, and he has not answered me yet." To which the man, still staring at the ceiling finally replied to the aide, "I can hear him and yes, I am Moses, but the last time I spoke to a bush, I spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness."


:O:

[vienna]

George W. Bush was walking through an airport last week, when he saw an old man with white hair, a long white beard, wearing a long white robe and holding a staff. He walked up to the man, who was staring at the ceiling, and "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?"
The man stood perfectly still and continued to stare at the ceiling, saying nothing. Again, George W. asked, a little louder this time, "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?" Again, the old man stared at the ceiling motionless without saying a word. George W. tried a third time, louder yet. "Excuse me sir, aren't you Moses?" Again, no movement or words from the old man. He continued to stare at the ceiling.
One of George W's aides asked him if there was a problem, and George W. said, "Either this man is deaf or extremely rude. I have asked him three times if he was Moses, and he has not answered me yet." To which the man, still staring at the ceiling finally replied to the aide, "I can hear him and yes, I am Moses, but the last time I spoke to a bush, I spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness."


:O:



:rotfl2:

...

[August]

Funny stuff Oberon! :DL

[CaptainMattJ.]

I hope not. I agree with skybird. Its all a catch-22. But id still rather vote for a slow-moving, indecisive, talking head than a fast acting time bomb that is the GOP nominees.

Neither party makes the right decisions. The democrats want koombayah let all the illegals live here for free with huge breaks in every aspect of life while the tax-paying citizen gets the finger-type of policies. The GOP wants to go back to monopolies where government did nothing to regulate big business and allowed them to grow out of control and gamble with the billions upon billions that they didnt have the right to throw away and sink everyone else with them. Its been made clear to me that the GOP, no matter what Obama does, will renounce everything hes achieved in his presidency. They dont like the idea behind obamacare (albeit obamacare is in need of much refinement), and they've made Obama out to be the devil.

Its just disgusting to see the incompetence, tribalism, and greed that plauges the nations "leaders". :nope:

[Tchocky]

Can Santorum win the primary? No.

Can Santorum win a talk slot on Fox after all of this is done? Sure.

[mapuc]

According to the danish news channel, Rick Santorum is gonna withdraw from the Republican election.


Markus

[BossMark]

According to the danish news channel, Rick Santorum is gonna withdraw from the Republican election.


Markus
Breaking news on sky says hes going to pull out of election race

[vienna]

Getting back a bit on the Moses tip, it dawned on me what it might have been like if Moses were around today with today's neo-cons. I would presume, that upon the presentation of the Comandments tablets, the neo-cons would immediately protest the interference of the "Government" in public and private affairs. Then I expect the neo-con business contingent would be upset by the bothersome "do not steal, lie, cheat, covet" provisions as stifling "job creation" and "entrepreneurism"...

I now await the lightning bolt from above... :D

BTW, glad that Santorum is out, but still wish there was someone better than Romney...

...

[nikimcbee]

No. He just quit.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/presidential-candidate-rick-santorum-announcement/

[soopaman2]

Getting back a bit on the Moses tip, it dawned on me what it might have been like if Moses were around today with today's neo-cons. I would presume, that upon the presentation of the Comandments tablets, the neo-cons would immediately protest the interference of the "Government" in public and private affairs. Then I expect the neo-con business contingent would be upset by the bothersome "do not steal, lie, cheat, covet" provisions as stifling "job creation" and "entrepreneurism"...

I now await the lightning bolt from above... :D

BTW, glad that Santorum is out, but still wish there was someone better than Romney...

...

Todays GOP would be dancing around the Golden Calf as Moses returned.

Not being mean, just saying.:salute:

I agree with your last statement. (There is something creepy about Romney) I really miss "moderate politicians" (D's and R's)

I just want someone to cater to the middle of the roaders as most Americans are.

Obama by default, people prefer a guy who does nothing, to a firebrand who does too much.

(Prayers out for Santorums child, politics aside)

[Subnuts]

I hear the mirror-universe CSA is looking for a presidential candidate.

[vienna]

I just want someone to cater to the middle of the roaders as most Americans are.

Obama by default, people prefer a guy who does nothing, to a firebrand who does too much.


I basically agree. The GOP leadership (an oxymoron, it appears) has the unnerving habit of taking viable, sane candidates and turning them into raving extremists, at least in the eyes of the electorate. Look at Bob Dole: a decent enough candidate, but the GOP "advisers" turned his public image into that of an "angry, old, man", obscuring his sense of humor and humanity. Then they did the same thing to McCain. The many jokes on late night talk show about McCain as the"grumpy old granpa" also obscured a man who had much to offer. (Not that being saddled with Palin helped his campaign.) You can go back all the way to Goldwater against Johnson in 1964 (the first campaign I volunteered on at the age of 13). I have a deep respect for Barry Goldwater and admire him as straightforward individual who could be trusted to speak the truth as he saw it and, more often that not, he was correct. But the campaign that was run on his behalf also made him out to be this angry, raging guy who was possibly going to start WW3. Johnson, not the most popular of persons, even with the cachet of being JFK's VP, really hammered on this and was able to defeat Goldwater...

This morning, on the radio, the local news station had an item about the electability of Obama versus Romney. It was interesting to hear that on the topic of likability, Obama far outpolled Romney. This is something the GOP must address, but I fear they will simply fall back on old habits and make Romney out as a raving Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity, etc. icon. As was said in a campaign of the past, where the GOP also lost, "It's the economy, stupid!" They can try to play to Romeny's strengths in this area (he outpolls Obama on economic issues) but, knowing the GOP leadership, it'll instead be more of the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, flag waving, bible thumping, and whatever else they usually run with as a sideshow instead of dealing with the real issues that interest and affect the "middle of the roaders" like jobs, economic recovery, and stability here in the U.S. Oh, I'm sure the GOP leadership will address the economic issues; they'll just do it as they always have, with platitudes, slogans, and vagaries. Neither party seems to have learned much from the effect Perot had in the 1992 elections. He was mocked by both parties for his presentations, using charts and graphs to explain to the electorate the economic problems and his possible solutions. But Perot did get 20% of the total votes in the 1992 election (most of those votes at the expense of the GOP, btw) and, I believe, proved the electorate will listen to someone who will talk straight, lay it all out openly, and propose actual, possible solutions. I voted for Perot in 1992, because I could not, in good conscience, just vote for the "lesser of two evils". I may have "thrown away my vote", as some had told me, but I believe the 1992 election was a shot across the bows of both parties to give up the rhetoric and speak plainly and honestly without platitudes. I really didn't think Perot had a chance in hell of really winning, but I was "mad as hell, and not going to take it any more". I was surprised at how big a percentage of the vote he recieved in the election. The middle of the roaders spoke out with their votes, but the parties didn't really listen, particularly the GOP. It will be interest where they will take Romney...

...

[Skybird]

No. He just quit.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/presidential-candidate-rick-santorum-announcement/


I remember a refrain from Porgy and Bess: "He's gone gone gone gone gone gone gone."

:D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17671077

[geetrue]

Okay, so he quit ... I went out on a limb, but my God is a pun artist.

Santorum still won because he said Obama would make a better president than Romney.

All Obama has to do now is run all the wishy washy, flip flopping quotes and statements that Romney has made.

If Obama wins start digging :|\\

[soopaman2]

Mc Cain is a great example Vienna.

I listened to him for years on Don Imus' show, before Sharpton got to him and emasculated him(Imus), and he always seemed more understanding and willing to work for the common good.
When the establishment got there hands on him in 2008 and began to mold him in the "proper conservative" image, he lost himself alot of the independant voters. Palin was simply a response to the democratic popularity of Hilary, and a nail in the coffin for many "swing voters" like myself who votes for the best available, rather than based on a consonant by the name.

It is a shame, I have an immense amount of respect for Mr. McCain, for his stellar war record, and as a senator who was willing to work across the aisle for the greater good.

Bush Jr is actually considered moderate compared to the current GOP field. He at least had a human aura about him.

This smashing is not only reserved to the GOP mind you.

The main problem is, that the "party leaders" who are simply leaders and not elected by us, yet dictate the proper ideology for all the monkeys who bear the mark of D or R.

Be something other than us (like a wretched independant, or tree humping green partier) and we will bury you, with our Wall Street, big Pharma, and Monsanto funded PACS.

I am voting for a constitutional convention.

Can I still say that? I'll e-mail from Guantanimo.:cool:

[Penguin]

Sanatorium is out of the race?
A good day for the US, a sad day for all comedians and cartoonists, worldwide...

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/42/santoiran.jpg

Looks like I won't get an answer to this question soon:
Can the SCOTUS deny someone becoming POTUS because he's unconstitutional? :know:

[Rockstar]

Sanatorium is out of the race?
A good day for the US, a sad day for all comedians and cartoonists, worldwide...

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/42/santoiran.jpg

Looks like I won't get an answer to this question soon:
Can the SCOTUS deny someone becoming POTUS because he's unconstitutional? :know:


Abe Lincoln was from Iran?



.

[August]

Looks like I won't get an answer to this question soon:
Can the SCOTUS deny someone becoming POTUS because he's unconstitutional? :know:

What do you mean by unconstitutional? Not being qualified to serve or by his subsequent actions?

[mookiemookie]

The lesson learned here is that God really stinks at handicapping presidential primaries.

[August]

The lesson learned here is that God really stinks at handicapping presidential primaries.

That's your take away? :roll: :DL

[mookiemookie]

That's your take away? :roll: :DL

:know:

:O: :rotfl2:

[Buddahaid]

I have the right to call my boss a child molesting big dick in public. Would he be wrong for firing me?

[Platapus]

Looks like I won't get an answer to this question soon:
Can the SCOTUS deny someone becoming POTUS because he's unconstitutional? :know:

Your question is not worded very clear. How can a person be "unconstitutional"?

Each candidate for President has to originally register with their individual state board of elections. It is the state board that establishes eligibility for that election. Challenges for eligibility go back to the specific state board of elections. The FEC focuses on financial matters, not eligibility matters.

I am not aware of any circumstance where a candidate's eligibility would ever get to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The SCotUS only has original jurisdiction in accordance to 28 USC section 1251 and focuses primarily with disagreements between states.

After a person is elected President, the they can only be removed through Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. The Supreme Court (specifically the Chief Justice) only gets involved if the impeachment is against the President. The rest of the Justices are not involved.

Does any of this answer your question? If not, could you please be a little more specific. I will be glad to get the answer back to you.

[Platapus]

I have the right to call my boss a child molesting big dick in public. Would he be wrong for firing me?

I don't know whether it would be right or wrong for him to fire you, but whether it is legal depends on the state. If you are in what is known as a "at-will employment" state, yes he can legally fire you. If you don't live in one of those states, it would be up to the specific legislation of that state.

[Penguin]

Your question is not worded very clear. How can a person be "unconstitutional"?

Each candidate for President has to originally register with their individual state board of elections. It is the state board that establishes eligibility for that election. Challenges for eligibility go back to the specific state board of elections. The FEC focuses on financial matters, not eligibility matters.

I am not aware of any circumstance where a candidate's eligibility would ever get to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The SCotUS only has original jurisdiction in accordance to 28 USC section 1251 and focuses primarily with disagreements between states.

After a person is elected President, the they can only be removed through Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. The Supreme Court (specifically the Chief Justice) only gets involved if the impeachment is against the President. The rest of the Justices are not involved.

Does any of this answer your question? If not, could you please be a little more specific. I will be glad to get the answer back to you.

My question was a lame joke attempt, referring to Santorum's urge to attack the separation between religion and state. So if he had the chance to act out on this, he would attempt to violate fundamental constitutional principles (or in this case violate the Bill Of Rights)

In the German constitution, the first paragraphs enjoy a special protection and are not eligible to be changed (basically the paragraphs concerning basic human rights, but also the separation of power). Due to the German history, there is also a right of resistance against any entity that tries to change that. So in this case, the German head of the state could be impeached.

Thanks for your extensive answer though. :salute:
As you encouraged me to ask: What would be the role of the Chief Justice in the case of an impeachment? And could the state board deny someone to become eligible as the President when for example he runs on the platform to abolish the Congress and establish a dictatorship?

[August]

What would be the role of the Chief Justice in the case of an impeachment?

I can answer this one. The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial which is held by the US Senate and prosecuted by the House of Representatives.

[Platapus]

What would be the role of the Chief Justice in the case of an impeachment? And could the state board deny someone to become eligible as the President when for example he runs on the platform to abolish the Congress and establish a dictatorship?


Excellent questions.

1. The chief justice would preside over the trial (senate) portion of the impeachment process. This relieves the Vice President (the President of the Senate) from an uncomfortable position.

2. Your second question is one near and dear to me as I actually wrote a paper on that in my doctorate studies.

Article 2 of the constitution lists the qualifications for president. The eligible candidate for President can campaign on what ever platform he or she chooses. There is nothing preventing a POTUS candidate from running on a platform of abolishing the constitution. It would be a dumb thing to do but legal. Presidential candidates still maintain their first amendment rights.

When the candidate actually becomes President, he or she has to swear an oath verbally, and in writing,

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Only if the President actually commits a "high crime or misdemeanor" can he or she be removed from office. Since the President is not granted power to abolish the Constitution (actually no one has that authority, only congress has the power to append), any action the President would take to abolish the constitution would be considered a crime and he or she would be prevented from doing it.

So, no, a State Board of Elections can not deny eligibility due to a platform. A Candidate can run on any platform he or she wants and their platform can be as insane as they choose it to be. It is actions, after he or she becomes president that they are legally accountable for.

This is why in Presidential elections, when ever a candidate says "if I am elected I will change X". The first question the voter needs to ask is: Does the President have the authority to actually change X? If not, then most likely what the candidate really should say is "if you elect me, I will ask congress to change X or ask congress to give me the authority to change X". Most likely congress won't do that.

This is one of the reasons Ron Paul would not work out as President. Sure he wants to change a lot, but as President he does not have the authority to implement many of his desired changes. No. Dr. Paul, if elected, would have to persuade congress to implement the changes he wants.

This is why, in my opinion, the number one qualification for President is the demonstrated ability to "make the deal" with congress. Without congressional support, the POTUS is SOL on a great many issues.

[Platapus]

1. The chief justice would preside over the trial (senate) portion of the impeachment process. This relieves the Vice President (the President of the Senate) from an uncomfortable position.

Almost interesting constitutional trivia.

When the person being impeached is the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate trial. For all other federal impeachments, the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, would preside.

So what happens if the Vice President is the one being impeached? Well due to an oversight in writing the Constitution, legally, the Vice President would preside over his or her own impeachment. Fortunately we have never had to put this to the test. It would be an interesting argument to follow.

[August]

Almost interesting constitutional trivia.

When the person being impeached is the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate trial. For all other federal impeachments, the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, would preside.

So what happens if the Vice President is the one being impeached? Well due to an oversight in writing the Constitution, legally, the Vice President would preside over his or her own impeachment. Fortunately we have never had to put this to the test. It would be an interesting argument to follow.

So the President can't fire his Veep?

[Platapus]

So the President can't fire his Veep?

Nope. Even though DC is an at-will employment state. :D

[August]

Nope. Even though DC is an at-will employment state. :D

Interesting. I always imagined that who the president nominates he could fire.

If I may ask one other question. Does a VP or CJSC, when presiding over an impeachment trial, have regular judicial powers like being able to declare a mistrial? I'm under the impression it's pretty much a ceremonial position with little power to affect the proceedings.

[mookiemookie]

http://i.imgur.com/uUsyv.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting. I always imagined that who the president nominates he could fire.
The Vice President is elected separately. The President has no power over him at all, except that the Veep needs to stay on the boss's good side or find himself out of the loop.

If I may ask one other question. Does a VP or CJSC, when presiding over an impeachment trial, have regular judicial powers like being able to declare a mistrial? I'm under the impression it's pretty much a ceremonial position with little power to affect the proceedings.
I think it's much like his job as President of The Senate. He only acts as referee.

[Penguin]

Very interesting stuff, especially for people like me who are only quarter-educated about the finesses of the US political system - though I doubt that I'd learned all that if I had made my HS diploma in the US :know:

[JU_88]

Excellent questions.

This is one of the reasons Ron Paul would not work out as President. Sure he wants to change a lot, but as President he does not have the authority to implement many of his desired changes. No. Dr. Paul, if elected, would have to persuade congress to implement the changes he wants.

This is why, in my opinion, the number one qualification for President is the demonstrated ability to "make the deal" with congress. Without congressional support, the POTUS is SOL on a great many issues.

Wrong attitude if you ask me. Who should actually be driving Democratic America? congress or the American people?
Congress are supposed to be setting the policies and legistlation that the the majority of people actually support and voted for.
So -what if the majority of people acually want Ron Paul's policies? (Bearing in mind Paul is the only republican candiate who polls better than Obama)
Are you saying 'no its too bad because congress dont like it?'
If the poeple are behind a president but congress isn't - do you still have to go with congress? Or maybe congress needs to be replaced, because they are simply out of touch with the people.

Anyway, there is still quite alot the president can do though the power of Excecutive order... Obama has bypassed congress several times this way already, Ron Paul could quite easily repeal the patriot act though executive order if he wanted to... Along with that horrific bill which allows the US government to assasinate it own citizens without trial, he might as well just burn the constitution while hes at it.

Love the way Mitt Romney has already won according to the likes of MNBC FOX and CNN what a joke, the way they treat Paul is appauling! (no pun intended)

They are blocking out Ron paul and his huge following as if it simply doesnt exist, bottom line is many of the people love him, but the establishment do not. Hell the GOP has already fiddled him out of some of the caucuses. (don't make me post links, if you want video proof, you will have no problem finding it).

Pauls chances are slim now, but due the number of unbound delegates still out there, he has not offically lost yet.
So its still a two man race, dont pay too much heed to the garbage media. Paul can tear both Romney and Obama a new one in a debate.
You can bet your grandmother Romney will be no different to Obama once in power.
Its hard to 100% agree with Paul on everything he says, but my god - the last thing America needs right now is "more of the same" when it is undeniably in a steady decent.
If i were American, Id sure want to give the man a chance.

Oh and good riddance to Santorum.

[Platapus]

Does a VP or CJSC, when presiding over an impeachment trial, have regular judicial powers like being able to declare a mistrial? I'm under the impression it's pretty much a ceremonial position with little power to affect the proceedings.

They would preside over the trial very similar to the way a judge does. Since in order for the senate to convict there has to be a vote of 2/3s of the total membership. This means that even if the Vice President is presiding, he or she does not get to vote.

You bring up a great question concerning mistrials in impeachment. None of my references mentions the possibility of a mistrial during a federal impeachment. Upon reflection this makes sense as the Senate is the ultimate court for federal impeachment. Since the Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority, there is no question of a hung jury.

I don't know what would happen if all the Senators from party X suddenly decided to walk out before being placed under oath. That would be an interesting event. :yep:

Who should actually be driving Democratic America? congress or the American people?
Congress are supposed to be setting the policies and legistlation that the the majority of people actually support and voted for.


To be blunt: No.

First of all, what is the democratic America you referenced? We have a representative government where the representatives are elected through democratic processes. But it still remains a representative government.

This means that I, as a citizen, through the power of my single vote, elect five federal representatives (2 senators, 1 representative, 1 president and 1 VP). Through my vote I also empower these representatives to make legal decisions on my behalf and in my absence. This is why it is so very important to elect people that truly represent your feelings.

In the US, we grant our federal representatives a great deal of freedom to perform their duties. Unless the representative breaks a law and gets impeached, the powers of the citizen are limited to simply not choosing to reelect the scumbag next election. A representative is under no legal obligation to act or not act in accordance to the opinions of his or her constituents.

Ole Eddie Burke, who was quite the rum wit in the British Parliament back in the mid/late 1700's once said that a representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgement. He betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion.

This pretty much sums up what a representative does. He or she makes decisions based on THEIR judgment and not on MY opinion. Until the re-election, the citizens are pretty powerless to change.

In the US we don't have "Confidence Votes" that occur mid term. Our "Confidence Vote" comes every 2,4,6 years respective of the office.

So -what if the majority of people acually want Ron Paul's policies? ...Are you saying 'no its too bad because congress dont like it?'

Unfortunately, this is exactly what I am saying. Citizens can write letters to their representatives, but while they are in office, there is no requirement that a representative changes his or her vote based on the opinions of even the majority of the citizens in the jurisdiction. That is the core of a representative government -- we elect representatives and then empower them to act, through their term, according to their judgement.

Ron Paul could quite easily repeal the patriot act though executive order if he wanted to...

No he couldn't. The USA Patriot Act is a law (U.S.C. 115 Stat. 272). It is important to note the difference between a law and a regulation.

There are two sources of "law" in the United States. One comes from the legislative branch and are called Public Laws and the other comes from the executive branch and are called regulations. One can be thrown in jail just as quick for violating a federal regulation than for violating a federal law.

Laws are made by the legislative branch (Congress) They are documented in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

Regulations are made by the Executive Branch (President). They are documented in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

A regulation is how the government will implement a law A president can issue an Executive Order that modifies a regulation or changes how the Executive Branch (which implements laws) will implement a law.

A President can't issue an Executive Order that cancels a law.:nope:

Now, since Washington's time, there has been, and will always be a power struggle between the President and Congress. The President (all presidents) try to push the envelope. Often congress lets the president get away with small stuff but will push back on the big stuff. There is a lot of political push/pull and deals are made all the time. However, Congress is very reluctant to abdicate any of their legislative power to the President. All Executive Orders must be grounded in existing legislation.

If congress claims that a specific Executive Order is not grounded in existing legislation, then congress has two choices. Either change existing laws, or levy charges to the Supreme Court. This is actually the original purpose of the Supreme Court -- to settle these differences between the two other branches.

[Platapus]

.
Along with that horrific bill which allows the US government to assasinate it own citizens without trial

BTW, there is no bill that allows the US government to assassinate US Citizens. Perhaps you are confusing it with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. That act does not give the President nor anyone else the authority to assassinate. That act, under some interpretations, gives the President the power to imprison US Citizens under specific circumstances.

It is the Executive Branch's opinion that the authority for the President to order the assassination of US Citizens comes from, Senate Joint Resolution 23 "Authorization for use of Military Force" 2001. Unfortunately, this authorization is so poorly written that is rampant with abuse possibilities.

One of the many things I agree with Dr. Paul is his opinion that this Joint Resolution needs to be killed and a better worded on voted on.

These Joint Resolutions are an example of how Congress can, for specific purposes, abdicate their legislative power in favor of Executive power. I think members of Congress are starting to see the error of this resolution.

This is what happens when congress reacts in a panic instead of logically thinking things through. :nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, what is the democratic America you referenced? We have a representative government where the representatives are elected through democratic processes. But it still remains a representative government.

Thank you, Platapus. I get so sick and tired of people referring to our government as a democracy when it is nothing of the sort.

[geetrue]

Thank you, Platapus. I get so sick and tired of people referring to our government as a democracy when it is nothing of the sort.

This country is a republic: http://askville.amazon.com/country-USA-republic-democracy/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=43118

More specifically, a constitutional federal republic. However, this government is operated as a representative democracy by a congress. The important distinction is that the USA is not operated democratically, but rather by representatives who come to power by democractic process. This was an essential and subtle fundamental of the constitution: we are not a true democracy which could amount to mob rule, but a representative democracy in which our leaders act in our interests.

[Sailor Steve]

Thank you, Platapus. I get so sick and tired of people referring to our government as a democracy when it is nothing of the sort.
And I get sick of people using catch-phrases and simplistic terms to further their own partisan beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson called himself a Republican because he believed in the Republic. Alexander Hamilton called Jefferson a Democrat because to him "Democracy" implied what he termed (and some today still term) "Mob Rule", when actually it's nothing of the sort. Of course 'Democracy' implies a system in which all citizens take a direct part in policy-making, and in anything larger than a very small community that is impossible. That said, a Republic is nothing more than a representative Democracy. The Roman Senators were heads of the leading families, and represented their family interests. The French and American Republics are ruled by elected representatives, but we all knew that. Most western governments are run along similar lines these days, and they use different terms to define themselves. Unfortunately some people try to raise their side and demean the other side by any means available, including condemning their opponents just for using the "wrong" name. It's a partisan political trick used by partisan political hacks, and nothing more.

Yes, the American Republic is a Representative Democracy, but a Democracy nonetheless.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actually, America is a Constitutional Republic that allows Democratic elections.

[mookiemookie]

Thank you, Platapus. I get so sick and tired of people referring to our government as a democracy when it is nothing of the sort.

Nothing of the sort, eh? The 17th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution) would like to have a word with you.

Do a bit more reading on the subject (ideally something not partisan) and you'll see the terms "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

And I get sick of people using catch-phrases and simplistic terms to further their own partisan beliefs.

... Unfortunately some people try to raise their side and demean the other side by any means available, including condemning their opponents just for using the "wrong" name. It's a partisan political trick used by partisan political hacks, and nothing more.

Yes, the American Republic is a Representative Democracy, but a Democracy nonetheless.

Spot on.

[Platapus]

The 17th amendment is not one of my favorites.

Don't know, though, whether congress would be better today if it were not for the 17th or not. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

The 17th amendment is not one of my favorites.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. The States were afraid of losing their autonomy, and the Senate was set up to represent the interests of the states, not the people. Of course we've all lived with the current system our entire lives (shut up, McBee!) and it seems to work alright. Then again, we've lived with the Federal Income Tax our entire lives as well. Next year is the 100th anniversary of both. Maybe it's time for them to go. :sunny:

[CaptainHaplo]

Do a bit more reading on the subject (ideally something not partisan) and you'll see the terms "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

I never said the terms were mutually exclusive. However, to say that we have a democracy - aka 51% tell the other 49% how to live - is entirely inaccurate. Democracy plays its part in the selections of the REPRESENTATIVES of our government. The members of the House and senate are elected by the people they represent. However, the people alone do not vote on the laws of the nation.

In fact, I don't know that their has ever been a "national referendum" on any law - binding or non-binding. If such were the case and binding - THAT would be democracy. We have a republic - where the representatives of the people are elected in some cases - but not all.

Appointments to various governmental positions, both federal and state - along with the electoral college, the 2 party "primary system", the issues of ballot access, etc - all insure that we are NOT a democracy.

I recognize that democracy has a place within our governmental structure - but to refer to our government as a democracy - is pure fallacy.

[Tribesman]

So according to Haplo I live in a democracy but also it must be a republic and there are things that means I am in a republic but most definately not a democracy which can in no way be countered by the presence of the existing measures which make the country unquestionably a democracy under his own terms.

I think the problem is that he is confused over the word democracy and instead wants to use a very narrow definition of limited parts of the refinement of democracy which is under the wider heading of direct democracy.

[Sailor Steve]

On one hand it's true, as far as national matters are concerned we are more Representative Republic than Direct Democracy. The problem I have with the saying is that it used dishonestly. I've heard it a hundred times over the last couple of decades, and every single time it's only used as a political catch-phrase by right-wingers who want to "prove" that REPUBLICans are better than DEMOCRAts. It serves no other purpose, and the people who trot it out don't care about semantics, just politics.

[Tribesman]

On one hand it's true, as far as national matters are concerned we are more Representative Republic than Direct Democracy.
True, but the point was he didn't go on about direct democracy just democracy, and he didn't say it was more of one than the other he said CAPS LOCK.

It serves no other purpose, and the people who trot it out don't care about semantics, just politics.
I disagree, I think it is trotted out by people who don't care about politics.

[CaptainHaplo]

On one hand it's true, as far as national matters are concerned we are more Representative Republic than Direct Democracy.

We are not a direct democracy at all - we don't (as a populous) vote on legislation. Our government has elements of democracy, and those elements are necessary.

The problem I have with the saying is that it used dishonestly. I've heard it a hundred times over the last couple of decades, and every single time it's only used as a political catch-phrase by right-wingers who want to "prove" that REPUBLICans are better than DEMOCRAts. It serves no other purpose, and the people who trot it out don't care about semantics, just politics.

I don't see how using a correct term is political at all. To claim we have a form of government that we do not have is simply incorrect. Using the correct term for what we have doesn't make one group "better" than the other.

Actually Steve, since you said that people who trot it out are more about politics than semantics - how did my using the correct term somehow make "Team R" better than "Team D"? Platapus, who initially raised the issues - is (to my knowledge) a bit "left of center" in most of his views, so I don't see how he would raise the issue if it was about politics.

To me, making sure that our leaders and the press do not misrepresent our form of government is important - because the more people accept something as it is misrepresented - the more they are willing to see it changed into what it is called. If that is somehow a "left" vs "right" debate, I don't see it.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually Steve, since you said that people who trot it out are more about politics than semantics - how did my using the correct term somehow make "Team R" better than "Team D"? Platapus, who initially raised the issues - is (to my knowledge) a bit "left of center" in most of his views, so I don't see how he would raise the issue if it was about politics.
I think it was the "It makes me sick" comment. I'm a big stickler for correct terminology, and while I try to correct people on it, it never makes me sick. As I said, every time I've ever seen it before it's always the same, and if you're different then your the first. While this is entirely possible, you're not known for being exactly impartial in your political opinions. Also, whether the terminology is precise is too small a potato to get "sick" over it.

[CaptainHaplo]

I think it was the "It makes me sick" comment. I'm a big stickler for correct terminology, and while I try to correct people on it, it never makes me sick.

Its a figure of speech. I could have said "nothing makes me madder" but that also would be an exaggeration. To be more accurate - it is an intense irritant that makes me grind my teeth over the fact that some politician or press member is so uneducated or is intentionally misleading. If your a big stickler for correct terminology, then why give me grief over insisting people use the right term?

As I said, every time I've ever seen it before it's always the same, and if you're different then your the first.

I asked you WHERE I had made it partisan. Either I have - or I haven't. You can tell the difference. If you can't see anything partisan in the my comment on it, then there is no "if" about it....

While this is entirely possible, you're not known for being exactly impartial in your political opinions.

I never claimed to be impartial. I am known however for calling things like I see them - and that includes stating when someone of a different political stripe does something I agree with. While I may have opinions, and I may state them and be willing to debate them, they did not come into discussion here - you just assumed something and had a go at me. Don't know what has you so uptight, but there is no reason to make me a target. If there is - that means you have something personal with me, and I think it would be best to take that into PM to work out. If there isn't - then we are cool but how bout we stop making assumptions that breed this kind of back and forth.

[Tribesman]

I don't see how using a correct term is political at all.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
The problem arises from you using the incorrect term but insisting it is the correct one.

We are not a direct democracy at all
Indeed that is partially true on one level if you refine it and drop the "at all", but the problem is that it wasn't the claim you had made and the one you are trying to stick to.

Our government has elements of democracy, and those elements are necessary.

In essence your position is...
You are a cheese, but you are Roquefort, as most cheese mainly comes from cows milk it means you are not a cheese, it is wrong to call you a cheese even though you definately are cheese.

The major problem you are hitting there Haplo is that you not only made the misleading claim about milk sources and ill fitted it to your attempt at defining the product on the shelves, but that you also insisted on doing it at both a corner shop and hypermarket level where it doesn't fit at all and for good measure ignored that the hypermarket has a little corner shop cheese boutique built in.

Though what that has to do with the price of cheese is anyones guess:woot:

[Sailor Steve]

I asked you WHERE I had made it partisan. Either I have - or I haven't. You can tell the difference. If you can't see anything partisan in the my comment on it, then there is no "if" about it....
As I said, everyone who has ever said it before within my hearing (or reading) has been that way, and if you're different you're the first. "If it looks like a duck..." etc.

Back to the issue (well, not really, because the issue was Santorum, but that's pretty much dried up): I'm the one who used the term "Direct Democracy". Up until then you were adamant about specificity when the terms "Democracy" and "Republic" are actually pretty general. As for being a stickler, I think I explained my take on the terms fairly well.

...but there is no reason to make me a target...
I wasn't making you a target. I include you in a group that includes several people who appear to walk in lockstep on these kinds of issues. You just happened to be the one to make a general attack on anyone who uses a certain terminology that you don't like. You used the "it makes me sick" approach, so I replied in kind.

[mookiemookie]

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
The problem arises from you using the incorrect term but insisting it is the correct one.


Indeed that is partially true on one level if you refine it and drop the "at all", but the problem is that it wasn't the claim you had made and the one you are trying to stick to.


In essence your position is...
You are a cheese, but you are Roquefort, as most cheese mainly comes from cows milk it means you are not a cheese, it is wrong to call you a cheese even though you definately are cheese.

The major problem you are hitting there Haplo is that you not only made the misleading claim about milk sources and ill fitted it to your attempt at defining the product on the shelves, but that you also insisted on doing it at both a corner shop and hypermarket level where it doesn't fit at all and for good measure ignored that the hypermarket has a little corner shop cheese boutique built in.

Though what that has to do with the price of cheese is anyones guess:woot:

:rotfl2:

"Our government is cheese..."

"No, it's Gruyere!"

"but Gruyere is a type of...

"GRUYERE!"

"Yeah, and..."

"GRUYERE! GRUYERE! GRUYERE!"

"Oh, nevermind."

[Tribesman]

If you look at it Mookie, Haplos attempts at narrowing the definition of cheese to show that his cheese really is not cheese has the logical outcome that there is no cheese in existance anywhere in the world.
It would have been much easier for him to have agreed that ovine and bovine can both be found in the world of cheese and both varieties and others beside can all accurately be described as cheese in one way or another...
Or as you put it, they are not mutually exclusive.

[vienna]

"Our government is cheese..."

"No, it's Gruyere!"

"but Gruyere is a type of...

"GRUYERE!"

"Yeah, and..."

"GRUYERE! GRUYERE! GRUYERE!"

"Oh, nevermind."

As Reagan would say, "There you Gruyere again..." :D

...

[mookiemookie]

As Reagan would say, "There you Gruyere again..." :D

...

You cheddar believe it.

[vienna]

You cheddar believe it.


Must be a day for cheesey comments... :D

[Rilder]

Must be a day for cheesey comments... :D

If we don't get this under control the entire forum will go cheesey, and that is not a gouda thing.

[Tribesman]

Must be a day for cheesey comments.
Its all part of the daily rind.

[mookiemookie]

Haplo's created a Muenster.

[vienna]

I guess we should all ask ourselves: WWFD? (What would fondue?)... :D

[u crank]

Smells funny in here.:hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Smells funny in here
Thats because Vienna with his Fondue was really going out on a limburger

[Sailor Steve]

Asagio what you did there.

[vienna]

Thats because Vienna with his Fondue was really going out on a limburger


Cheese'us! Give a guy a break!...

...

[Sailor Steve]

Hey! Chimay have a point. Nacho problem anyway.

[mookiemookie]

Hey! Chimay have a point. Nacho problem anyway.

It colby his problem, you never know.

[Sailor Steve]

It colby his problem, you never know.
I hope you don't feel picodon, but you don't know jack. :O:

[geetrue]

I chedder to think where this thread has gone ...

[August]

The puns in this thread are kind of cheesy... :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

The puns in this thread are kind of cheesy... :yep:
Mondseer, I think you're rushan to conclusions. Chanion not see how gouda this thread has become, now that it's turned in an urda direction?

[mookiemookie]

Pun threads...when they go, manchego all the way.

[August]

This guy has an opinion about cheese:

http://i.cdn.cnngo.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/inline_image_300x400/2012/03/21/cheeseheads2.jpg

[vienna]

Isn't there some sort of cosmic (not to mention comic) irony that a thread that started off being about Santorum has now turned to cheese?...

Sancerre Bleu! I guess this just provolone a point about politics...

...

[Penguin]

I edam don't know what harz happened to this thread!


Isn't there some sort of cosmic (not to mention comic) irony that a thread that started off being about Santorum has now turned to cheese?...


I just hope that the American public will never be ripe for him! :yep:

[vienna]

I just hope that the American public will never be ripe for him! :yep:


I hope not either...

But, you know how it is...

Queso Serat, Serat...

...