I don't. Maybe I'm missing something, but asking a candidate to verify they're legally qualified for the position seems like no big deal to me. The only problem I do have with it is the ability of the SoS to keep a name off the ballot if they don't believe the requirements were met. Too open, IMO. It should be simply 'you must provide X or, barring X, Y or Z and if you do not your name will be off the ballot' and not some nebulous thing. I guess I'm ok with the idea but maybe not with this particular implementation. As is (if it's really that vague), it's open to abuse.
Link
I don't. Maybe I'm missing something, but asking a candidate to verify they're legally qualified for the position seems like no big deal to me. The only problem I do have with it is the ability of the SoS to keep a name off the ballot if they don't believe the requirements were met. Too open, IMO. It should be simply 'you must provide X or, barring X, Y or Z and if you do not your name will be off the ballot' and not some nebulous thing. I guess I'm ok with the idea but maybe not with this particular implementation. As is (if it's really that vague), it's open to abuse.
I'm okay with the requirement in general. I'm leary of saying that the SoS's ability to keep the name off the ballot is good or bad, though. Without reading the actual language of the bill, we only have the writer's word/interpretation of how easy or hard it may be.
I'm just amazed that people honestly don't believe that this doesn't already happen. All this nonsense is rooted in that ridiculous birther movement. I'm sorry but you'd think that a birth certificate posted online, with several third parties having examined it in person and declared it authentic, would be enough to shut these morons up.
Exactly. It is already a requirement. And this idiot Arizona Rep. Carl Seel saying:
"This bill is about the integrity of our elections," Seel said.
is a load of BS that makes even Florida politicians like geniuses. What a load. When was the last time a bill like this was even considered, much less introduced? Anyone going to go back and ask Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. for their birth certificates? Anyone question whether or not ragan was a natural born citizen?
I have no problem candidates proving they are natural born citizens. It is already a required law. I have a problem with morons like Seel and the whole moronic birther movement doing it in order to de-legitimize a presidency they don't agree with.
Bunch of idiots.
That's it. I give up.
I better start stocking supplies now if I want to survive the coming Collapse.
Blah. It's a blatant case of pandering to the loons, will probably be a blatant case of abuse of power, and a political stunt at it's worst.
I am curious to know if after seeing the certificate they will be satisfied.
Could legislators in Arizona, after seeing it, say: This certificate ain't no good. We believe it is a fake.
Seeing as how that's the entire argument of the birthers, I'd say that's exactly what will happen.
The problem is the motivation and that Arizona is going to try to use this to keep Obama off the ballot there. I mean really, that certainly sounds like it gives the Secretary of State (or whatever) pretty wide discretion...
Blah. It's a blatant case of pandering to the loons, will probably be a blatant case of abuse of power, and a political stunt at it's worst.
In other words business as usual right?
I am curious to know if after seeing the certificate they will be satisfied.
Could legislators in Arizona, after seeing it, say: This certificate ain't no good. We believe it is a fake.
The way it was presented in the article indicates that this is a possibility. The SoS can strike candidates from the ballot if the SoS doesn't believe the candidate met the requirements. That's ... awful vague.
It would probably have the effect of energizing the Democratic base in other states.
I am curious to know if after seeing the certificate they will be satisfied.
Could legislators in Arizona, after seeing it, say: This certificate ain't no good. We believe it is a fake.
The way it was presented in the article indicates that this is a possibility. The SoS can strike candidates from the ballot if the SoS doesn't believe the candidate met the requirements. That's ... awful vague.
But we don't know if it's vague or not, really. The author of the article could be writing it to sound a lot more vague than it really is, either intentionally or unintentionally. So much of media plays up minor things to sound a lot worse than they are, because they feel that "the sky is falling" type articles sell a lot better than telling the truth does.
Really, they only way they can "win" with this is if they try to keep him off the ballot and then get forced by the courts to keep him on anyway.
Except that this is Arizona we're talking about... if they didn't think they could keep Obama off the ballot, would they have done it? I mean really... if they keep him on the ballot then they're basically admitting that the birthers are crazy, which seems like it would be something really stupid to do after passing a law just to score points with them.
Really, they only way they can "win" with this is if they try to keep him off the ballot and then get forced by the courts to keep him on anyway.
Are you so against the possibility that this wasn't done to score points with the birthers, but instead to prevent other birther type BS in the future? Arizona said it wasn't a "birther" bill and without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
That or they at least believe they can't.
Why the hell else would they be increasingly be reaching out to the wackos? (be it Birthers, the KKK, or Westboro baptists)
Could that party actually be dying?
Meh, Max. They can say that it isn't catering to it, but this is almost exactly the kind of thing the Birthers would want. I don't think it's a coincidence that this proposition fits with a pro birther agenda. Especially given some of the candidates from the red party. (Trump and his birther esque comments come to mind for example)
Except that this is Arizona we're talking about... if they didn't think they could keep Obama off the ballot, would they have done it? I mean really... if they keep him on the ballot then they're basically admitting that the birthers are crazy, which seems like it would be something really stupid to do after passing a law just to score points with them.
Really, they only way they can "win" with this is if they try to keep him off the ballot and then get forced by the courts to keep him on anyway.
Are you so against the possibility that this wasn't done to score points with the birthers, but instead to prevent other birther type BS in the future? Arizona said it wasn't a "birther" bill and without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So I go this bridge. It's in Brooklyn. I own it. I can sell it to you for a really good price. What do you think? ;)
Except that this is Arizona we're talking about... if they didn't think they could keep Obama off the ballot, would they have done it? I mean really... if they keep him on the ballot then they're basically admitting that the birthers are crazy, which seems like it would be something really stupid to do after passing a law just to score points with them.
Really, they only way they can "win" with this is if they try to keep him off the ballot and then get forced by the courts to keep him on anyway.
Are you so against the possibility that this wasn't done to score points with the birthers, but instead to prevent other birther type BS in the future? Arizona said it wasn't a "birther" bill and without evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So I go this bridge. It's in Brooklyn. I own it. I can sell it to you for a really good price. What do you think? ;)
Oooh, really? I've been looking for a bridge.
Seriously, though, Arizona has been justifiably and understandably very anti-illegal imigration, but prior to this bill, I had heard nothing pro-birther from that State.
Oooh, really? I've been looking for a bridge.
Seriously, though, Arizona has been justifiably and understandably very anti-illegal imigration, but prior to this bill, I had heard nothing pro-birther from that State.
It takes time to get to this level of stupidity. It's redundant. It's spending more tax payer money on something that has already been taken care of. Good thing they care so much about the budget right?
Oooh, really? I've been looking for a bridge.
Seriously, though, Arizona has been justifiably and understandably very anti-illegal imigration, but prior to this bill, I had heard nothing pro-birther from that State.
It takes time to get to this level of stupidity. It's redundant. It's spending more tax payer money on something that has already been taken care of. Good thing they care so much about the budget right?
I'll agree that it's dumb and useless ;)
I just am not going to assume that it's some sort of birther appeasement bill without evidence in support of that assumption.
That doesn't mean that support for this faction needs to be widespread in Arizona, or even among Arizona Republicans. It's possible for a few politicians with more extreme views to wield disproportionate power for one reason or another, which allows the odd bizarre measure to become law.
It's kind of hard to say they will stoop the same levels, when one goes out of it's way to get almost the full gamut of Hate Groups on it's side, and then try to cater to them once elected.
Please list them. I'm legimately curious.
Democrats and Republicans. Two sides of the same coin. Both are equally inclined to stoop to any level to trash the other side.
Nah. The GoP and some of it's supporter are miles a head. There is no symetry.
I disagree. As someone who dislikes both parties equally, I see massive abuses on both sides. It comes down to them both destroying the country, but doing so with different methodologies.
pretty much this. hence some of my more infamous examples in a previous post.
And thanks for clarifying.
Note I believe the Blue Sissies, are just as bad as the Fascist Party. Their job as they see it (on both sides) is to help destroy the middle class, and gut what's left of what made America's presence on the world stage.
I'm just amazed that people honestly don't believe that this doesn't already happen. All this nonsense is rooted in that ridiculous birther movement. I'm sorry but you'd think that a birth certificate posted online, with several third parties having examined it in person and declared it authentic, would be enough to shut these morons up.
Hating Obama is a religion to these birther nutcases. You can't kill a belief with facts.
I'm just amazed that people honestly don't believe that this doesn't already happen. All this nonsense is rooted in that ridiculous birther movement. I'm sorry but you'd think that a birth certificate posted online, with several third parties having examined it in person and declared it authentic, would be enough to shut these morons up.
Hating Obama is a religion to these birther nutcases. You can't kill a belief with facts.
What if those facts were inscribed in bullets? ;)
So which Hate Groups and Fundamentalist Extremist groups do the blue ties go to get votes from?
Please list them. I'm legimately curious.
Extreme feminist groups
The Black Panthers
Extreme abortion rights groups
Mecha and other extreme illegal immigrant groups
The ACLU
The Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan
Extreme animal rights groups
and others
I'm just amazed that people honestly don't believe that this doesn't already happen. All this nonsense is rooted in that ridiculous birther movement. I'm sorry but you'd think that a birth certificate posted online, with several third parties having examined it in person and declared it authentic, would be enough to shut these morons up.
Hating Obama is a religion to these birther nutcases. You can't kill a belief with facts.
What if those facts were inscribed in bullets? ;)
No good. Many birther/tea party psychos would happily put a bullet into Obama is given the chance. If sane and rational people lower themselves to the level of irrational maniacs they, the maniacs, win.
Fundamentalists and Fundamentalist Extremists... there's a difference. And "Extremist" can be such a subjective term that some people tack onto a group for effect. I am not saying that you are doing that. I am just saying that I want to be on the same page.
For instance, The Birthers I would agree with you in being extremists. The Tea Party, however, I would classify as right-wing fundamentalists. Neither of which I would classify as an actual hate group.
No good. Many birther/tea party psychos would happily put a bullet into Obama is given the chance.
So would many non-birther/non-tea party psychos. The "psychos" just seem to be attracted to the opposite side of whomever is in office. There were plenty of left-wing psychos who would have loved to do the same to Bush when he was in office.
Well, your inclusion of Fundamentalist Extreme groups adds a bit of a slippery slope. I get what hate groups are, and to be honest there are maybe only a handful of recognizable and organized hate groups. The KKK is a great example.
Fundamentalists and Fundamentalist Extremists... there's a difference. And "Extremist" can be such a subjective term that some people tack onto a group for effect. I am not saying that you are doing that. I am just saying that I want to be on the same page.
For instance, The Birthers I would agree with you in being extremists. The Tea Party, however, I would classify as right-wing fundamentalists. Neither of which I would classify as an actual hate group.
Though many 'tea partiers' are also birthers. So that makes them Fundamental Extremists no?
Generally I tack extremist on, when someone's views go so far outside of the social norm that implementations of those ideas can actually be a danger to society at large, starting a slide down a rather slippery slope.
That our political system is set up to cater to extremists, and hate groups at all is just down right sad. Of course I suppose that's what happens when less than 1/4 of the population goes out to vote.
Also, Max thanks for the list. Heh I forgot the Black Panthers even existed. (They just don't make the news that often) And there are actual Extremist Feminist groups? Like actual groups of women that band together for the destruction or complete subjugation of men? (Isn't that kind of defeating biological imperative for species survival to hold that view??)
Though many 'tea partiers' are also birthers. So that makes them Fundamental Extremists no?
Not in a single sense. They are not fundamental extremist so much as fundamentalist AND extremist. The former being Tea Party only and the latter being birther only.
Also, Max thanks for the list. Heh I forgot the Black Panthers even existed. (They just don't make the news that often)
Really? They've been in the new recently because Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder refused to go after the Black Panthers for blatant election intimidation, referring to them as "my people."
Though many 'tea partiers' are also birthers. So that makes them Fundamental Extremists no?
That makes some members of the Tea Party extremists. Not the entire group.
Generally I tack extremist on, when someone's views go so far outside of the social norm that implementations of those ideas can actually be a danger to society at large, starting a slide down a rather slippery slope.
Okay, this is good to know.
So when does outside of the social norm cross that line into being part of the social norm. Because there are Tea Party candidates that have been elected. Wouldn't this classify as being socially accepted at some level?That our political system is set up to cater to extremists, and hate groups at all is just down right sad. Of course I suppose that's what happens when less than 1/4 of the population goes out to vote.
This, I could not agree more with.
___
Interesting graph from CBS News (please consider the source as well):
Regardless, I believe that Obama was born in America, just to clear up any possible misconceptions about my part in this discussion. I just don't see much difference between this and the attack on Bush with the conspiracy theories about 9/11. Both sides will simply go to whatever extreme to discredit the other side. It's abhorrent behavior.
I just surf the net, and look at the headlines posted on firefox, msn, and yahoo news. Though I'm leaning on msn less and less, I swear it's becoming one giant Cosmo citation.
Jharii: Well getting elected as a senator or house rep is one thing, being elected for the Big Chair is another. For example Obama is Pres. While that says a great deal about the racial acceptance level in modern america, there are states like Mississippi that are so backward that 46 percent of the population there abouts thinks interracial marriages should be illegal.
In such states, where views that fly in the face of wider America, the crazies take root. While they are accepted there, (obviously) whether or not their views are accepted in wider american society is questionable.
I think the difference between the Bush Did It! crowd, and the Birther crowd is fairly minor but present. The Birther crowd tends to favor conservative politicians and ideology, while the Bush Did It! crowd I've noticed seems more like the paranoid survivalist type that has a bomb shelter, tinfoil hat in his backyard. In other words the Bush Did It! crowd tends to be Anti government in general.
Jharii: Well getting elected as a senator or house rep is one thing, being elected for the Big Chair is another. For example Obama is Pres. While that says a great deal about the racial acceptance level in modern america, there are states like Mississippi that are so backward that 46 percent of the population there abouts thinks interracial marriages should be illegal.
In such states, where views that fly in the face of wider America, the crazies take root. While they are accepted there, (obviously) whether or not their views are accepted in wider american society is questionable.
While we may share the views that we are on the same page about your example above, it is socially acceptable in specific regions of the country. Hence, my previous "vote with your feet" reference. America has a home for just about everyone and their beliefs. There's plenty of room. The problems start occurring when one group tells another group that they are doing it the wrong way.
It's that whole tolerance thing again. We need more of that instead of more finger pointing.
I think the difference between the Bush Did It! crowd, and the Birther crowd is fairly minor but present. The Birther crowd tends to favor conservative politicians and ideology, while the Bush Did It! crowd I've noticed seems more like the paranoid survivalist type that has a bomb shelter, tinfoil hat in his backyard. In other words the Bush Did It! crowd tends to be Anti government in general.
I think that if you look where both conspiracy theories originated from, you will find a lot of similarities. I.e. both sides of the same coin.
No good. Many birther/tea party psychos would happily put a bullet into Obama is given the chance.
So would many non-birther/non-tea party psychos. The "psychos" just seem to be attracted to the opposite side of whomever is in office. There were plenty of left-wing psychos who would have loved to do the same to Bush when he was in office.
And they were equally wrong. The only real difference is numbers and overtness of the threat. No one came bearing loaded automatic weapons or "We came unarmed (this time)" signs to Bush rallies. The Tea Party didn't invent fringe political insanity but they've taken it to a whole new level…for America, anyway. They're still bush league (no pun intended) on the international field.
And they were equally wrong.
Yeah, that was my initial point.
The only real difference is numbers and overtness of the threat. No one came bearing loaded automatic weapons or "We came unarmed (this time)" signs to Bush rallies. The Tea Party didn't invent fringe political insanity but they've taken it to a whole new level…for America, anyway. They're still bush league (no pun intended) on the international field.
You sure about that?
Here's one example. The link above has plenty more.
And they were equally wrong.
Yeah, that was my initial point.The only real difference is numbers and overtness of the threat. No one came bearing loaded automatic weapons or "We came unarmed (this time)" signs to Bush rallies. The Tea Party didn't invent fringe political insanity but they've taken it to a whole new level…for America, anyway. They're still bush league (no pun intended) on the international field.
You sure about that?
Yes. Context matters significantly. Your search was specifically for "anti bush rally" and many of the extremely violent images are clearly from foreign anti-American events.
Even the one you chose to highlight clearly had a layer of intent behind it that was not an actual death threat, as evinced by the (shoot me) portion of the sign. It seems likely it was meant as a commentary on aggresive reprisals against anti-Bush protestors.
Again, I am not denying there were extreme - and extremely wrong - individuals who advocated violence against Bush but both the number and overtness of these threats was several orders of magnitude less than that currently aimed at Obama. To ignore this fact is simply willful ignorance.
Yes. Context matters significantly. Your search was specifically for "anti bush rally" and many of the extremely violent images are clearly from foreign anti-American events.
Even the one you chose to highlight clearly had a layer of intent behind it that was not an actual death threat, as evinced by the (shoot me) portion of the sign. It seems likely it was meant as a commentary on aggresive reprisals against anti-Bush protestors.
As does interpretation. Many (most? all?) of the signs you referenced as "We came unarmed (this time)" was a direct reference to the media calling the Tea Party violent. The point was that one person carrying that same sign to each rally they attend... I.e. he is always unarmed.
It's that whole irony thing.
Again, I am not denying there were extreme - and extremely wrong - individuals who advocated violence against Bush but both the number and overtness of these threats was several orders of magnitude less than that currently aimed at Obama. To ignore this fact is simply willful ignorance.
Oh, so we have established what it is, we're just negotiating a price?
All I said was that bost sides are equally guilty of it. I do not have the numbers, nor do you, to support or disprove either side. I do know that the current media is very eager to point a camera at any anti-Obama sentiment. Not so much with anti-Bush sentiment, a point which you cannot really refute either.
So which Hate Groups and Fundamentalist Extremist groups do the blue ties go to get votes from?
Please list them. I'm legimately curious.
Extreme feminist groups
The Black Panthers
Extreme abortion rights groups
Mecha and other extreme illegal immigrant groups
The ACLU
The Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan
Extreme animal rights groups
and others
... while I have no idea how these various groups vote, the thing is I don't see Democrats pandering in legislation or political stunts to get their votes. On the other hand I do see Republicans threatening the entire budget over Planned Parenthood, pushing legislation in many states about illegal immigration, pulling fun redundant shanigans to make sure no federal money goes to abortions, push bills to criminalize miscarriages, make public statements about "men in dresses in women's bathrooms", threaten the entire budget over DADT, and so-on.
I mean... just what have democrats done to pander to the Nation of Islam lately? Not agree with extremist Republicans that building mosques should be illegal?
So which Hate Groups and Fundamentalist Extremist groups do the blue ties go to get votes from?
Please list them. I'm legimately curious.
Extreme feminist groups
The Black Panthers
Extreme abortion rights groups
Mecha and other extreme illegal immigrant groups
The ACLU
The Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan
Extreme animal rights groups
and others
... while I have no idea how these various groups vote, the thing is I don't see Democrats pandering in legislation or political stunts to get their votes.
You mean like refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers or appearing on stage at events with Louis Farrakhan? No. Those aren't political stunts. No sir.
On the other hand I do see Republicans threatening the entire budget over Planned Parenthood,
It takes two to tango. The Democrats were equally bad at threatening the budget over planned parenthood, or else it would not have been the issue that it was.
pushing legislation in many states about illegal immigration,
This is a MAJOR problem and if the Feds refuse to do something about it, the States have to.
I mean... just what have democrats done to pander to the Nation of Islam lately?
Appeared on stage with Louis Farrakhan at a town hall meeting just last month.
On the other hand I do see Republicans threatening the entire budget over Planned Parenthood,
It takes two to tango. The Democrats were equally bad at threatening the budget over planned parenthood, or else it would not have been the issue that it was.
There is a difference between defending funding for planned parenthood, which is what democrats did, and holding the budget hostage over a redundancy, which is what republicans did. federal money is already barred from being used to fund abortions. Republicans, knowing this, still wanted to go after planned parenthood to stop it from using federal money from being used to fund abortions. It's the same as requiring that a presidential candidate proves he/she is a natural born citizen of the U.S. It is redundant. It is creating legislation that is already in the books.
Which is really annying coming from the party that continues to hammer home the message of less spending. How much time and money did these idiots spend coming up with legislation that is already in effect?
By the way, did anyone here realize that the bill required early baptismal or circumcision certificates? seriously... that is just another level of crazy.
So it seems that while some here may not have a problem with the Arizona bill, Arizona's governor does. www.mediaite.com/tv/az-gov-jan-brewer-ve...
By the way, did anyone here realize that the bill required early baptismal or circumcision certificates? seriously... that is just another level of crazy.
So if your parents weren't Christians or Jewish, you can't run for the Presidency in Arizona? What a waste of the Supreme Court's time.
Funny enough, one of the people commenting on the story points out that the bill requires the birth certificate long form, which according to the person sommenting, isn't provided in Arizona. they effectively be stopping anyone from Arizona from running for president if that is true.
We need to start a funny news by state thread. I'm sure we could find plenty of stupidity out there. Quebec can join in also. I'm sure there are plenty of laughs coming out of there.
In any event, either Brewer can't read or the article was incorrect. Still, it seems the bill was horrendously written and it's good it was killed. Something like this should be very clear and not offer room for abuse.
The article I linked to stated the baptism/circumcision stuff could be used in place of a birth certificate if the person in question didn't have one - not that it was required in addition to. Though it would be good if they both were required in addition to a birth certificate because it would keep Clinton and Palin off the ballot.
In any event, either Brewer can't read or the article was incorrect. Still, it seems the bill was horrendously written and it's good it was killed. Something like this should be very clear and not offer room for abuse.
Here lies the problem. This bill originated as a way to abuse the system and keep individuals off of state ballots. It's pretty dificult to design an abusive bill so it isn't abused. Hell, if someone... anyone... could do that, they deserve a prize.
Fair point. This certainly appears to be a bill written with a specific candidate in mind.
You're talking about Bush aren't you? Why do you hate him so much?
I was actually talkin' about Palin. She couldn't have been circumcised, they know it and so they set this whole thing up to keep her out. I mean, who else could it have been aimed at? Certainly not Hil-dog.
It coulkd have been aimed at Trump. With that hair and craziness, there is no way he is even human.
I was actually talkin' about Palin. She couldn't have been circumcised, they know it and so they set this whole thing up to keep her out. I mean, who else could it have been aimed at? Certainly not Hil-dog.
It coulkd have been aimed at Trump. With that hair and craziness, there is no way he is even human.
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
If she or Trump runs they lose. At least I hope so. I'm no Obama fan but those two disasters should never represent our nation to the world.
Damn, that makes too much sense to be wrong. Thing is, he's a giant dick so he probably has circumcision papers. Maybe it's for McCain? He wasn't born here either, right?
No one knows when McCain was born. Writing hadn't been invented yet.
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
If Palin ran, Obama has a chance of being elected emperor supreme for life.
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
If she or Trump runs they lose. At least I hope so. I'm no Obama fan but those two disasters should never represent our nation to the world.
That would be the greatest ticket ever. Trump & Palin 2012.
So who would be the presidential candidate and who would be the vice presidential candidate? I would imagine that Palin would not want to go for VP again, but as arrogant as TRump is, I doubt he would even let her even think abot the prsidency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran as both the President and the Vice-President.
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
If she or Trump runs they lose. At least I hope so. I'm no Obama fan but those two disasters should never represent our nation to the world.
That would be the greatest ticket ever. Trump & Palin 2012.
So who would be the presidential candidate and who would be the vice presidential candidate? I would imagine that Palin would not want to go for VP again, but as arrogant as TRump is, I doubt he would even let her even think abot the prsidency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran as both the President and the Vice-President.
I can see the campaign slogan. TP the White House 2012!
Heh. That's at least more likely. Palin is only a threat to the Republicans. If she runs, she and they lose. Some of the Democrats in my family are hoping that she decides to run.
If she or Trump runs they lose. At least I hope so. I'm no Obama fan but those two disasters should never represent our nation to the world.
That would be the greatest ticket ever. Trump & Palin 2012.
So who would be the presidential candidate and who would be the vice presidential candidate? I would imagine that Palin would not want to go for VP again, but as arrogant as TRump is, I doubt he would even let her even think abot the prsidency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran as both the President and the Vice-President.
Nah. He'd bring her on as VP and then just fire her when he won.
No one knows when McCain was born. Writing hadn't been invented yet.
True. Maybe a birth cave painting?
I want a Trump-Palin ticket.
And if they did ran and won, how much would you hate the people around you for voting for them?
If ever there was a reason for America to go all Jonestown that would be it.
That would be the greatest ticket ever. Trump & Palin 2012.
So who would be the presidential candidate and who would be the vice presidential candidate? I would imagine that Palin would not want to go for VP again, but as arrogant as TRump is, I doubt he would even let her even think abot the prsidency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran as both the President and the Vice-President.
No way The Hair would let Mama Griz head the ticket. Not in a McCain's age would that happen. I do think it's possible he'd run as both, though. He is that much of an idiot. Oh, he may just do a show to figure it out. 'The Vice President' could determine who his running mate is and ensure enough ass kissing lackeyness to suit the Donald. New catchphrase possibilities, too. 'You're off the ticket.'
No one knows when McCain was born. Writing hadn't been invented yet.
True. Maybe a birth cave painting?
Unfortunately, the Constitution allows anyone born outside the US to become President if they were in the Country at the time of the Revolution, so he probably qualifies that way
Unfortunately, the Constitution allows anyone born outside the US to become President if they were in the Country at the time of the Revolution, so he probably qualifies that way
Nice.
True. Maybe a birth cave painting?
Unfortunately he sold the land the cave was in to developers. It is now a corporate office building.
No way The Hair would let Mama Griz head the ticket. Not in a McCain's age would that happen. I do think it's possible he'd run as both, though. He is that much of an idiot. Oh, he may just do a show to figure it out. 'The Vice President' could determine who his running mate is and ensure enough ass kissing lackeyness to suit the Donald. New catchphrase possibilities, too. 'You're off the ticket.'
I'd watch that show. You know he would have them running around doing some funny stunts.
If ever there was a reason for America to go all Jonestown that would be it.
Agreed, although I think the blackhole of stupidity that would come into being would beat us to it.
Unfortunately he sold the land the cave was in to developers. It is now a corporate office building.
Welp, he's boned then.
I'd watch that show. You know he would have them running around doing some funny stunts.
Yeah, the stunts would be hilarious. 'Course the stuff he did off the campaign trail may be entertaining, too. ;)
Agreed, although I think the blackhole of stupidity that would come into being would beat us to it.
We can only hope. I was never a real fan of Flavor Aid.
No one knows when McCain was born. Writing hadn't been invented yet.
True. Maybe a birth cave painting?
Unfortunately, the Constitution allows anyone born outside the US to become President if they were in the Country at the time of the Revolution, so he probably qualifies that way
Where did you hear this from? I recall reading that you had to be American born, no exceptions, in throughout history. All of our presidents were born in America. We just weren't our own country yet when the first few were born.
No one knows when McCain was born. Writing hadn't been invented yet.
True. Maybe a birth cave painting?
Unfortunately, the Constitution allows anyone born outside the US to become President if they were in the Country at the time of the Revolution, so he probably qualifies that way
Where did you hear this from? I recall reading that you had to be American born, no exceptions, in throughout history. All of our presidents were born in America. We just weren't our own country yet when the first few were born.
It's written into the Constitution in the part about who can be President. It's very clear
It's just not talked about much since everyone alive at the time is long since departed........except McCain!!!
Edit: Below is the text in question from the Constitution. The applicable parts are bolded. Every so often when people discuss whether or not to change the Constitution to allow non-natural born Citizens to be President, the pro side will reference those parts of the paragraph to show that the intent was to allow them, but the founding fathers made a mistake in language or didn't have the foresight to realize that it might be an issue in the future.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Its why I don't vote. I'd be weeded out as "not normal" because of my above average IQ 133, my injury status (my arm is messed up), I was in jail overnight for a parking violation (because I couldn't pay the fine) so I'm a "criminal". Really what's the point if they don't like how I vote their going to remove me...
I think its time they gave the country back to the people...
I think its funny how people are worried about how politicians get elected especially since bush wasn't elected either time. Heck the last time over 20,000 votes were just thrown out in Florida because they had the same first or last name as an inmate. No checking was done and no apologies or reparations were issued...
Its why I don't vote. I'd be weeded out as "not normal" because of my above average IQ 133, my injury status (my arm is messed up), I was in jail overnight for a parking violation (because I couldn't pay the fine) so I'm a "criminal". Really what's the point if they don't like how I vote their going to remove me...
I think its time they gave the country back to the people...
You were in jail for a parking violation? I knew you were a dirty criminal scumbag! you should be banned from voting for the rest of your life. In addition, you should be banned from using the interwebz in order to prevent you from spreading your vileness to young and impressional children.
Umm ... I can't honestly recall, but aren't ballots anonymous? How could they know it was you that voted on any particular ballot? How could they eliminate it? I mean, even if your name is on it, what makes you think they'd weed through thousands of ballots to find your specific one to remove? Damn man, I thought I was microwave safe ...
Yes, but they stop you from registering if your not on "the list" so you can't vote after that...
I don't play M:TG. I had a short foray into it and didn't like the cost of entry or staying up to date. I've played D&D since the late 80's...
Yes, but they stop you from registering if your not on "the list" so you can't vote after that...
Yeah, that usually happens if you're like a felon or something. I could be wrong but I don't know of any states that ban you from voting over parking violations...
Yes, but they stop you from registering if your not on "the list" so you can't vote after that...
Yeah, that usually happens if you're like a felon or something. I could be wrong but I don't know of any states that ban you from voting over parking violations...
Except they do. My name would come up on the been in jail list and then "accidentally" it would be removed just like 20,000+ that were removed in the bush elections...
Except they do. My name would come up on the been in jail list and then "accidentally" it would be removed just like 20,000+ that were removed in the bush elections...
You know they have a word for this. Paranoia.
Besides, your excuse is that something "might" happen so you won't even make the attempt. By that logic anyone can simply shrug their shoulders and say that they might get outvoted and then their vote won't count so why bother?
Yes, but they stop you from registering if your not on "the list" so you can't vote after that...
Yeah, that usually happens if you're like a felon or something. I could be wrong but I don't know of any states that ban you from voting over parking violations...
Except they do. My name would come up on the been in jail list and then "accidentally" it would be removed just like 20,000+ that were removed in the bush elections...
Unless you actually have proof of this, this is just more unsubstantiated conspiricy talk. If you do have proof that your name was removed, show it to us. And let's see some actual evidence this time around.
Yes, but they stop you from registering if your not on "the list" so you can't vote after that...
Yeah, that usually happens if you're like a felon or something. I could be wrong but I don't know of any states that ban you from voting over parking violations...
Except they do. My name would come up on the been in jail list and then "accidentally" it would be removed just like 20,000+ that were removed in the bush elections...
Unless you actually have proof of this, this is just more unsubstantiated conspiricy talk. If you do have proof that your name was removed, show it to us. And let's see some actual evidence this time around.
My name personally was not removed because I didn't register because I don't make magicians choices (A magicians choice is when they give you two options and then regardless of the choice continue the magic trick in the same manner. An example is a card trick where they ask you to choose one of three cards. If you pick the card they want you to pick they say congratulations blah blah blah, if you pick the wrong card they say we're going to remove it pick another card).
Mainly I don't vote because they are asking me to choose between this evil guy and that evil guy. My question is which evil guy is gonna screw me less and the answer invariably comes back 'less you say? Don't think of it as less, think of it as in a different way.'
It is on record though that 20,000+ votes were mistakenly not counted in the second bush election in florida because the voters names matched the names of a criminal list. That is fact...
My name personally was not removed because I didn't register because I don't make magicians choices (A magicians choice is when they give you two options and then regardless of the choice continue the magic trick in the same manner. An example is a card trick where they ask you to choose one of three cards. If you pick the card they want you to pick they say congratulations blah blah blah, if you pick the wrong card they say we're going to remove it pick another card).
This is a cop out. People in your position have their votes counted. You seem to think that your vote won't be counted, so you don't vote. People who don't vote have no right to complain when someone they don't like gets into office. If you don't at least make the effort to get the guy you like (if any) elected, then zip it when the guy who wins doesn't do as you want him to.
Mainly I don't vote because they are asking me to choose between this evil guy and that evil guy. My question is which evil guy is gonna screw me less and the answer invariably comes back 'less you say? Don't think of it as less, think of it as in a different way.'
Unlike your unsubstantiated conspiricy theories, this is actually a valid concern. I often am left facing the choice of the lesser of two evils. However, unlike you, I vote anyway. If I don't vote and the greater evil makes it into office, then I have no right to complain about it. Sometimes, if the two choices are both so bad that I can't in good concience vote for either one, I'll pick a third party candidate and cast my vote for him.
It is on record though that 20,000+ votes were mistakenly not counted in the second bush election in florida because the voters names matched the names of a criminal list. That is fact...
Yeah.......and it will likely not happen again. The Florida fraud was found out and they would be stupid in the extreme to try it again. People who don't vote based on that instance of fraud are not helping themselves or anyone else by allowing their fears of conspiricies to rule them.
My name personally was not removed because I didn't register because I don't make magicians choices (A magicians choice is when they give you two options and then regardless of the choice continue the magic trick in the same manner. An example is a card trick where they ask you to choose one of three cards. If you pick the card they want you to pick they say congratulations blah blah blah, if you pick the wrong card they say we're going to remove it pick another card).
Bull****. If you want to be lazy and not vote, that's fine, that's your right. But don't come out here with these crazy conspiracy theories and pretend like someone is actually preventing you from doing it when you haven't even made the attempt.
Mainly I don't vote because they are asking me to choose between this evil guy and that evil guy. My question is which evil guy is gonna screw me less and the answer invariably comes back 'less you say? Don't think of it as less, think of it as in a different way.'
You know, you could participate in a party of your choice, even a third party, and try to influence who will actually be the presidential candidate for that party. Most people just wait around until the main event and then complain they don't like the candidates but make no effort whatsoever to influence who the candidates will be. And honestly, even if it comes down to the lesser of the two evils (which it usually does), wouldn't you want to do your part to make sure it's not the greater of the evils that takes office?
It is on record though that 20,000+ votes were mistakenly not counted in the second bush election in florida because the voters names matched the names of a criminal list. That is fact...
You're quoting a one-time event from a single state. Yeah, you really proved your point...
It is on record though that 20,000+ votes were mistakenly not counted in the second bush election in florida because the voters names matched the names of a criminal list. That is fact...
Yeah.......and it will likely not happen again. The Florida fraud was found out and they would be stupid in the extreme to try it again.
It's Florida. You would be stupid to think it couldn't happen again. Never underestimate the stupidity that comes out of Florida.
Unlike your unsubstantiated conspiricy theories, this is actually a valid concern. I often am left facing the choice of the lesser of two evils. However, unlike you, I vote anyway. If I don't vote and the greater evil makes it into office, then I have no right to complain about it. Sometimes, if the two choices are both so bad that I can't in good concience vote for either one, I'll pick a third party candidate and cast my vote for him.
Your right. next election I'm going to register and then go vote when I see the candidates and realize they are all out to screw the U.S. citizens, then I will write in "None of the Above"...
... just where do you live that they even looked at his medical record when he went to register?
Yeah I was kind of wondering the same thing. Do they require that you bring your medical records with you when you register? Even if there is any truth to this, how would they know whether or not you provided a complete record? I have several different sets of medical records. It's not like there's a universal standard or some centralized federal medical database they can tap into.
Regardless, something like what you are talking about would be huge news, considering it goes against all voting rights in the US.
I'm going to say Latvia.
BS, Latvia is a free democratic country. It's in the EU.
I'd say Chechenya
I don't know about you lot, but I won't be trusting a Donald T. anytime soon...
I'm going to say Latvia.
BS, Latvia is a free democratic country. It's in the EU.
I'd say Chechenya
I don't know about you lot, but I won't be trusting a Donald T. anytime soon...
Your logic is flawed. The US is also officially an democraty.
The US is a Republic.
/facepalm
Are you one of those who is unable to tell the difference between a Republic like the US and a true Democracy which the US is not?
Democracy.
Correct. The US is not a Democracy as we don't all have a say. What we are is a Republic, which is a form of government which elects REPRESENTATIVES to run the people. It is an absolute fact that the US is a Republic. Hell, even the pledge of allegience says it. "I pledge allegience to the flag of the Unites States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
I'll leave you to your inane and anal nit picking.
Please. Far be it from me and the facts to change your mind about the US. Enjoy.
You need to go back through and read the more obscure parts of the law. If you take any medicine that could be considered mind altering or for a mental problem such as depression or anything else you can be considered to not be of sound mind. Its a stretch but they use it all the time. They did it on my brother. I've taken similar medicines, so its likely I would be targeted. If they made it a matter of public record who was exluded and not counted in the voting process we could regulate it. As it is we hope they aren't excluding specific people based on marginal evidence.
Again, how would they get this information? Unless you are a danger to yourself or others, it would be illegal for that information to be shared. And I have yet to see a law that requires you to bring your medical and psychiatric records as part of the voter registration process.
Actually, they just passed a law where I live that if you have any kind of social or mental disorder then you are not eligible to vote. It would be easy to obtain your drug and medical records. In many cases its a matter of public record. Actually yes they do have a public database. Its just fragmented between hospitals. Each hospital keeps records and each hospital can be sent a request for these records. So while there is no 'massive centralized' database obtaining the records would be trivial.
Public record? Um...yeah...that's like in violation of federal law and such...you can't just get someone else's medical records like that...
And again, you don't actually know what you're talking about because you refuse to even make the attempt.
Actually, they just passed a law where I live that if you have any kind of social or mental disorder then you are not eligible to vote. It would be easy to obtain your drug and medical records. In many cases its a matter of public record. Actually yes they do have a public database. Its just fragmented between hospitals. Each hospital keeps records and each hospital can be sent a request for these records. So while there is no 'massive centralized' database obtaining the records would be trivial.
They can send all the requests they want, but those hospitals can't just release those records. You are just plain wrong about it being so easy. The laws protecting you are Federal, so not even Florida can undermine them.
Actually, they just passed a law where I live that if you have any kind of social or mental disorder then you are not eligible to vote. It would be easy to obtain your drug and medical records. In many cases its a matter of public record. Actually yes they do have a public database. Its just fragmented between hospitals. Each hospital keeps records and each hospital can be sent a request for these records. So while there is no 'massive centralized' database obtaining the records would be trivial.
So where do you live?
Not in the US apparently.
Just to prove how rampant it is here are some links.
Lousiana
Mississippi
California
Florida
That's just this year and a 1 minute google search. These things do exist and they are rampant...
Cute links. Now how about the link to that Arkansas law you are claiming exists that takes away your voting rights due to mental condition rather than unrelated news stories for other states. I mean, if it's an actual law, most certainly there is information on it on the internet.
Lies! The net is not about information.
Exacly. The internet is all about Pr0n.
I live in Arkansas, US. Its one of the most backwards states in America. They actually do have those laws.
Just to prove how rampant it is here are some links.
Lousiana
Mississippi
California
Florida
That's just this year and a 1 minute google search. These things do exist and they are rampant...
So you offer up a lot of nothing to prove that your state is violating Federal law. Nice.
The Lousiana plan was an oversight that didn't at all prevent poor people from walking into any post office and registering for free. In effect, it was a non-issue. If the poor can't be bothered to walk to the local post office to register for free, then they are too stupid to vote anyway.
The Mississippi problem can't be avoided. In California we're fighting with the legislature over re-districting. The Federal rule only mentions population. The State can legally draw really obscurely shaped districts that leave out people. Right now in California, it's almost impossible for a political party to lose a district, since the districts have been drawn around entire neighborhoods that vote one way or the other.
The California/Compton issue is also a wasted of link. Your link even gives the reasons.
1) That a huge number of the hispanics in Compton are illegals and can't vote anyway.
2) That most of the rest never bother to register to vote.
The hispanics also refuse to acknowledge these things. Perhaps if they did, they'd realize why they can't win with a 2/3 majority in a city where if they actually did achieve a majority ANYWHERE, ALL of the offices would be hispanic. They are not disenfranchised. They are either illegal or too stupid to vote and then want to complain about it.
And your Florida link is the worst of the lot. It isn't even an issue. It's just them being overly worried and working to make sure that nothing like what happened in the Bush/Gore election happens again.
Lastly, like Jhari said, you didn't provide anything to support your conspiricy claims. Instead you followed your usual MO and offered up a lot of non-evidence that doesn't prove a thing.
Here is where the law says you can't vote if you have any kind of mental or social problems:
To register to vote in Arkansas, you must:
- Be a U.S. citizen.
- Be an Arkansas resident (residing in Arkansas at least 30 days prior to the first election in which you will vote).
- Be age 18 or turn 18 on or before the next election.
- Not be a convicted felon whose sentence has not been discharged or pardoned.
- Not be presently adjudged as mentally incompetent as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction.
From here
If you don't want to look at the evidence that I present that proves that it could happen and you still believe that it couldn't possibly happen who has the questionable MO?
I've proved it can happen and does happen, what have you added to the discussion other than trying to discredit publicly known evidence unsuccessfully?
And yes, that means that if someone looks at your medical record and then refuses to register you, you can take their ass to court. First, for the privacy violation, and second, for denying you your constitutional right to vote.
Not be presently adjudged as mentally incompetent as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction.
That is a FAR leap from your undereggerated statement that your brother was simply on some medication.
So which is it? Has your brother been determined by the courts to be mentally incompetent? Or can you provide us with some actual proof to your previous statement?
Here is where the law says you can't vote if you have any kind of mental or social problems:
Does not match this:
Not be presently adjudged as mentally incompetent as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Note that you say 'any kind of mental or social problems' and the cited text states 'adjudged as mentally incompetant as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction'. These are not the same thing. Like, not even close.
I like how you try to justify voter exclusion. It really tells me something about you. Especially the part where you say "then they are too stupid to vote anyway".
What would you call someone who doesn't bother to walk down the block to register for free and then complains about it?
To register to vote in Arkansas, you must:
- Be a U.S. citizen.
- Be an Arkansas resident (residing in Arkansas at least 30 days prior to the first election in which you will vote).
- Be age 18 or turn 18 on or before the next election.
- Not be a convicted felon whose sentence has not been discharged or pardoned.
- Not be presently adjudged as mentally incompetent as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Um, that says nothing of the sort. Once again you are providing no actual evidence of your claims and in fact are providing just the opposite.......like you did witht he 9/11 conspiricy.
Mental and social problems =/= proven mentally incompetent in a Court of law.
Under that law, nobody can be kept from voting simply due to taking medications for psychological conditions. They would have to be so severe that the State took them to Court to prove them incompetent.
If you don't want to look at the evidence that I present that proves that it could happen and you still believe that it couldn't possibly happen who has the questionable MO?
When are you going to provide evidence of your ludicrous claims? When you do, I will be more than happy to look at it.
I've proved it can happen and does happen,
When? I have seen no such proof. I did see you just post proof that your claims are flat out wrong, though.
what have you added to the discussion other than trying to discredit publicly known evidence unsuccessfully?
Let's take a poll. All of you here that think I was unsuccessful, say so in a post. All of you that thought I was successful, also say so in a post.
That's nowhere even close to what you were saying, where even being on minor medication like antidepressants would be enought to exclude you because the people at the voter registration office somehow had illegal access to your medical records.
You're either giving excuses for why you don't vote,
someone's intentionally Misled you,
or you're simply mistaken on how that particular process works.
I'm not saying this happens everywhere or all the time. I'm saying specific groups and people take advantage of these kinds of situations to force people's votes not to count.
Those links I posted show that in at least some cases taking people off the ballot for non-legitimate reasons happens.
Actually when they say 'court' they mean some voter group simply pays a fee to a judicial page (forget what they're called) and they stamp a paper with the judges name, bam your off the list. Its the same shortcut they use to get wiretaps and personal information from ISPs. The 'court' encompasses everyone that works there in any form.
This is more conspiricy bull. That is NOT what is meant by a "court".
I'm not saying this happens everywhere or all the time. I'm saying specific groups and people take advantage of these kinds of situations to force people's votes not to count.
You actually going to post some real evidence this time?
Those links I posted show that in at least some cases taking people off the ballot for non-legitimate reasons happens.
Post that link again, because none of the ones I looked at before said this.
Actually when they say 'court' they mean some voter group simply pays a fee to a judicial page (forget what they're called) and they stamp a paper with the judges name, bam your off the list. Its the same shortcut they use to get wiretaps and personal information from ISPs. The 'court' encompasses everyone that works there in any form.
Um...no...that's not how it works...like not even remotely. You see, a "court" means a judge has to rule on it. To make that ruling, a judge has to have evidence. That's why police can't just wiretap whoever they want. They have to at least be able to present probable cause. What you're talking about is much more in depth. Oh and it's not a "shortcut" that's used to obtain wiretaps, that's the procedure. That is the way the system works to balance the need for police to do their job while protecting your right to privacy. There's nothing sneaky or shady about it.
See, first they'd have to legally obtain evidence of a mental defect, which is kind of a big deal given that under the circumstances you describe they would be violating federal law to do it. Two, you'd have to be notified of this because a court declaring you to not be mentally competent would affect a lot more than just your voting rights, so they can't do it in secret. Not to mention that this differs from a warrant for a search or wiretap in that in those examples the police have to show good reason for their action, but it's not as intensive as a criminal case because the entire reason for the warrant is that they are still building their case. On the other hand, when someone goes to court to declare you mentally incompetent, they have to be fully prepared to present evidence to support their case at that time. And you can contest it.
I'm not saying this happens everywhere or all the time. I'm saying specific groups and people take advantage of these kinds of situations to force people's votes not to count.
Ok, so you just admitted that this is not a regular occurrence yet you are using that as your excuse to not vote. So why do you think this will happen to you if it doesn't regularly happen to others? Not to mention you still haven't actually shown any proof that this happens AT ALL.
Those links I posted show that in at least some cases taking people off the ballot for non-legitimate reasons happens.
On occasion, **** happens, I'll give you that one. But refusing to vote because you might end up in that ridiculously small percentage of votes that don't get counted for non-legit reasons is absolutely ****ing retarded.
You have convinced me. Next election I'm going through all the crap to vote and when I get in there I'm writing "none of the above" on the bottom of the ballot...
Why waste your vote? At the very least you can write your own name in ;)
You have convinced me. Next election I'm going through all the crap to vote and when I get in there I'm writing "none of the above" on the bottom of the ballot...
Why waste your vote? At the very least you can write your own name in ;)
Your right. As soon as I'm old enough I'm running for president. I'll promise everything and just take money from the lobbyists. I'll retire like a millionaire and be the first President to play D&D in the white house with world leaders...
Heck I might even deign to veto some of the crap that goes though my office...