Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Because I feel the candidate in question is the best qualified. That is supposed to be the true reason of why you vote. No other criteria should matter when you vote. NONE!



So are you saying that I'm supposed to throw my desire to have a true Consitutional-based and bound nation through our national leadership in the trash for the sake of voting for something or someone I don't believe in?

Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine.



Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That's like asking why don't you eat the food containing 50% arsenic over the food containing 100% cyanide. Poison is poison.

And I'll be slammed if I allow my vote to further the cause of tyranny and fascism in the United States, because I will be responsible in aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty. Consequently, Constitutionally speaking, that makes me an enemy of the state by default.



Show me where Ron Paul (not some random ghostwriter) actually said this.

I don't think that Ron Paul is a candidate who really is all that interested in the Constitution. I have noticed that he tries to hide his racism by using the Constitution as the basis for his ideas.

The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts.

He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter.

He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place.

He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so?

And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't think that Ron Paul is a candidate who really is all that interested in the Constitution. I have noticed that he tries to hide his racism by using the Constitution as the basis for his ideas.

The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts.

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you. The problem is, that there is too much opportunity for the government to abuse this to serve their own selfish ends and incite propaganda to the public through needless fearmongering. Hate crime laws do make it crime to act on initial thoughts. The problem is, all too often, the government intervenes when it appears that someone MIGHT perpetrate a hate crime based on some random frivolous detail, thus making it a crime to think such thoughts.

It is for this reason, I am against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and TSA, because they promote and perpetuate this very same line of reasoning, except it's under the guise of "the boogey man" is out to get us that they conveniently label as "terrorism", be it through Bin Laden, Al Queda, or some other elusive monster the government tries to brainwash us to fear.

He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter.

You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.

He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place.

He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so?

That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

We put too much on the federal government to legislate what should be legislated at the state, county, and local levels, and it is for this reason that our nation is in the fouled up state of affairs that it is in. We need to stop relying on the federal government to baby us, breastfeed us, and hold our hands from cradle to grave and learn how to be self-sufficient while co-existing in a free market economy.

The Civil Rights Act may ultimately prove to be a moot point, as our civil LIBERTIES are slowly being taken away through all these government-sanctioned Executive Orders and rogue lawmaking "acts". So why argue about someone voting against federally-mandated civil rights acts when the federal government as a whole are making subsequent laws that ultimately takes your civil rights away? That makes no sense.

And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case.

This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government. The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future). Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING about him planning to bring the troops home.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system. I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.

Good post.

[deepimpact2]

I agree with you that we have to be careful when it comes to the federal government on certain issues. However, my concern is that if you leave some of these issues to states, that would result in chaos. For instance, some of the more racist states would choose to avoid enacting legislation that would make things more equal. Do you get what I mean?

But I agree with you on the Patriot Act and other similar issues.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you.

You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.

Why shouldn't it be a federal holdiay? He changed the Nation not just his state.

That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

If you put all of the above statements together what you get is "States Rights". Which we all know is another term for racism.



This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government.
I agree that The Patriot Act was horrible, but the reason he voted for the patriot act was because he was lead to believe that the government needed this power to protect its citizens. In this case the P.A. had a specific purpose (to keep Americans safe) and if it was misused then congress could act accordingly.
The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future).
How was the government's lack of response to Katrina Obama's fault?
Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING.
That's (what is in maroon above) all you needed to say. You clearly have not considered Obama's stance on the issues if you missed him railing on Clinton for voting for the war when Obama voted against it. Clearly you missed the debates where Obama hit McCain on this fact as well. Clearly you missed most of Obama's plan for Iraq. It calls for a total withdrawl of troops in 16 months. Infact, here it is: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php


Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system.
No way!
I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.
No one is considering these things. If you check my post above you'll see what I mean.

Good post. Agreed.

Wow.

[SummerChild]

KPN,
Why are people so much more comfortable with the *state* or the *local government* controlling them than the *federal government*?
I have never understood this. What is the difference between the feds being in control and the states being in control? Does having the state be in control make you feel more comfortable? Why?


IASK and DeepImpact,
Also, I really wish that the electoral college idea would just go away. Essentially, if there are only a few outliers, the one person-one vote method works all the same, and majority rules. The problem with the electoral college is that the votes afforded to a state are in some cases not apportioned according to the population of the state relative to other states. For example, there is no way that the states like Montana and South Dakota should get the number of votes that they get - if we are simply going by population. This is, to me, really a problem b/c small states have an inappropriately large influence on the election of the President. I say, to heck with the electoral college voting process. If we can count all of the votes in each state to determine whether the state is going to go blue or red or another color, then we ALREADY have counted everyone's vote (theoretically). So why not just add up everyone's vote and let the popular vote rule? Makes sense to me.

BTW, Georgia might go BLUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!!
SC

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you. The problem is, that there is too much opportunity for the government to abuse this to serve their own selfish ends and incite propaganda to the public through needless fearmongering. Hate crime laws do make it crime to act on initial thoughts. The problem is, all too often, the government intervenes when it appears that someone MIGHT perpetrate a hate crime based on some random frivolous detail, thus making it a crime to think such thoughts.

It is for this reason, I am against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and TSA, because they promote and perpetuate this very same line of reasoning, except it's under the guise of "the boogey man" is out to get us that they conveniently label as "terrorism", be it through Bin Laden, Al Queda, or some other elusive monster the government tries to brainwash us to fear.



You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.



That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

We put too much on the federal government to legislate what should be legislated at the state, county, and local levels, and it is for this reason that our nation is in the fouled up state of affairs that it is in. We need to stop relying on the federal government to baby us, breastfeed us, and hold our hands from cradle to grave and learn how to be self-sufficient while co-existing in a free market economy.

The Civil Rights Act may ultimately prove to be a moot point, as our civil LIBERTIES are slowly being taken away through all these government-sanctioned Executive Orders and rogue lawmaking "acts". So why argue about someone voting against federally-mandated civil rights acts when the federal government as a whole are making subsequent laws that ultimately takes your civil rights away? That makes no sense.



This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government. The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future). Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING about him planning to bring the troops home.



Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system. I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.

Good post.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

KPN,
Why are people so much more comfortable with the *state* or the *local government* controlling them than the *federal government*?

Good question, though one item I would like to clear up:

It is not a matter of the people being "controlled" by any governmental entity, but rather a proper and proportional balance of power by all parties involved: the people, the state, and the federal government.

All Articles of the Constitution addresses the roles and powers of the Federal Government, while and the first 8 of the 10 Bills of Rights addresses the means by which the federal government exercises its powers. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments by default relegates any powers not addressed previously in the Constitution to the people (Ninth Amendment) or to the States (Tenth Amendment).

Now as far as people being controlled by the State, if the State infringes on a person's rights or if the person has a grievance with the State, this is where the Eleventh Amendment supposedly comes into play. A citizen can sue the State in Federal court. A state does not have soverign immunity in such actions.

Ideally, the Federal government was intended to serve as a mediator between the people and the state, allowing the States to govern themselves accordingly while allowing the people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am oversimplifying this for the sake of brevity, but my point was that the federal government was NEVER intended to serve its own interests over that of its people or outside of the powers originally allowed to it by the United States Constitution, but was to serve at the pleasure of its people and to serve as referee between the people and the State, using the Constitution as a guide.

I have never understood this. What is the difference between the feds being in control and the states being in control? Does having the state be in control make you feel more comfortable? Why?

Because when you govern using the Constitution as a guide, you have a strong system of checks and balances instead of the rogue legislation practices and a string of un-Constitutional acts and executive orders, as you see now.

[ladygreek]

All I gotta say is he has constitutional right to vote for whomever he pleases without the need to justify it. At least he voted. (can't believe I am taking up for him )

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

That said, we'll just have to declare a mutual disagreement on this topic.
We can declare agreement. I agree with you on your decision to vote for RP. I really didn't understand why before, but I get it a little better now.

Bottom line, I voted MY WAY and I make absolutely no apologies for it or my reasoning thereof.
Now, that I agree with and respect 100%!


But I want to thank you and deepimpact for raising some good thought-provoking issues and being civil in so doing. No thanks necessary. Thank you for explaining your beliefs because you didn't have to.

Originally Posted by SummerChild

IASK and DeepImpact,
Also, I really wish that the electoral college idea would just go away.
I don't like the electoral college. It is insulting to me. At the same time I do realize that there may be a time where it could be necessary/useful. Since the electors vote as the people have voted I am not too concerned by the EC. The EC votes are equal to the number of Representatives a state has plus the number of senators. Since the # of Reps is "proportional" to the population the number of Electoral votes is also considered proportional to the states population.
The EC was put in place as a safety net. If McCain gets the popular vote on Nov 4th and then on Dec. 1 we find out he is a looney toon (who refuses medication/treatment) and they've been hiding that fact there is basically nothing that can be done. There will not be a re-vote because his condition does not disqualify him for the position. The American people may no longer want him as president. The states can decide to ask their citizens (via a poll/vote) if they would like for the other candidate to be president (an essential re-vote, but not a nationwide re-vote. It is a state decision). If that poll turns out for Obama then all the state has to do is ask the electors to vote Obama instead of McCain. Thus there is no need for a nation wide re-vote just have the electors change their vote.
The Electors are supposed to be educated people who would only vote differently than the citizens have if they felt the popular vote was a grave miscarriage of justice (ie: the citizens would have elected a man with dementia who may have run the nation into the ground)
I lived in D.C. for a short peroid of time and they really get screwed in this process because they do not truly have representation in Congress at all. They basically just get stuck with the least amount of electoral votes possible (their amount is eqaul to that of the least populus state). That is wrong to me.
BTW, Georgia might go BLUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!! I sent in my BLUE ballot!
SC

Originally Posted by ladygreek

All I gotta say is he has constitutional right to vote for whomever he pleases without the need to justify it. At least he voted. (can't believe I am taking up for him )

I agree, but LOL at that smiley. It gets me every time.

[SummerChild]

But IASK,
My point exactly, is that the number of votes is not proportional to the population relative to the population in other states.
Here's what I mean - take South Dakota, which had 781,000 people on the 2006 census, and take NY, which had 19,306,000.

Ok, 781,000/19,306,000 = 0.4
HOWEVER, South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes to New York's 31 --> 3/31 = 0.9.

Maybe I'm missing something or it's just me. But it seems to me, that if I'm not off base here, the effect of using the electoral college to seemingly represent population when, in fact, it does not proportionately represent population, gives the people of South Dakota more say in the election than they should have. To some extent, it is somewhat of an equal protection problem whereby each vote in NY weighs less than each vote in South Dakota.

However, if you take the sheer popular vote, then you get the true representation of who really won, and each person's vote is (theoretically) weighed the same, all across the nation.

Get what I mean?

Down with the electoral college. Those folk in South Dakota and North Dakota burn me up every election with their disproportionate say in who gets to be President.

If my memory serves me correctly, the move toward the electoral college was actually an attempt to protect the voice of the small states. I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think they are getting way more say than they deserve.

SC

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I agree, but LOL at that smiley. It gets me every time.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

All I gotta say is he has constitutional right to vote for whomever he pleases without the need to justify it. At least he voted. (can't believe I am taking up for him )

That's my take on the whole discussion. Too many people have DIED so we can exercise that freedom.


BTW, I phone banked for Obama today and will probably do so tomorrow, too!

[Honeykiss1974]

Obama's grandmother dies after battle with cancer

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...dma/index.html

[SummerChild]

I'll be canvassing to get out the vote. Looking forward to it.
SC

Originally Posted by mccoyred

That's my take on the whole discussion. Too many people have DIED so we can exercise that freedom.


BTW, I phone banked for Obama today and will probably do so tomorrow, too!

[AKA2D '91]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

BTW, I phone banked for Obama today and will probably do so tomorrow, too!

I did it yesterday. TonyB, NOW, can I sleep in tomorrow? Thanks!

I've registered folks to vote; I've gone to the local headquarters and worked; most of the peole I know early voted or have their own way of getting to the polls, is that sufficient? I know...I know, but at least I've done SOMETHING!

[SummerChild]

KPN,
Now, being an attorney and having studied constitutional law in depth, I don't agree completely with your characterization of the amendments, protections afforded therein or the balance between federal, state and people. However, my real question for you is simply what is the answer to the question that I posed? Is your answer that you are really not in favor of state control but against what you perceive as an overextension of federal control into area into which it does not belong - and you have your understanding of this perceived set of limitations on the federal government based on your personal understanding of the Constitution?

Is that the answer?

I ask not to challenge you - just to get a real common sense understanding as to why someone would feel more comfortable with the state governing than with the feds governing.

What is the answer to that (b/c I think you feel more comfortable with states governing - I just really want to understand this). For example, Palin talks about how abortion should be left to states. Is she convinced that a state does more to protect the rights of an individual than the feds, for example? If not, what is this preference for the *state* to exercise power as compared to the feds?

What is the basis for the preference?

Thanks,
SC

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Good question, though one item I would like to clear up:

It is not a matter of the people being "controlled" by any governmental entity, but rather a proper and proportional balance of power by all parties involved: the people, the state, and the federal government.

All Articles of the Constitution addresses the roles and powers of the Federal Government, while and the first 8 of the 10 Bills of Rights addresses the means by which the federal government exercises its powers. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments by default relegates any powers not addressed previously in the Constitution to the people (Ninth Amendment) or to the States (Tenth Amendment).

Now as far as people being controlled by the State, if the State infringes on a person's rights or if the person has a grievance with the State, this is where the Eleventh Amendment supposedly comes into play. A citizen can sue the State in Federal court. A state does not have soverign immunity in such actions.

Ideally, the Federal government was intended to serve as a mediator between the people and the state, allowing the States to govern themselves accordingly while allowing the people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am oversimplifying this for the sake of brevity, but my point was that the federal government was NEVER intended to serve its own interests over that of its people or outside of the powers originally allowed to it by the United States Constitution, but was to serve at the pleasure of its people and to serve as referee between the people and the State, using the Constitution as a guide.



Because when you govern using the Constitution as a guide, you have a strong system of checks and balances instead of the rogue legislation practices and a string of un-Constitutional acts and executive orders, as you see now.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

KPN,
Now, being an attorney and having studied constitutional law in depth, I don't agree completely with your characterization of the amendments, protections afforded therein or the balance between federal, state and people. However, my real question for you is simply what is the answer to the question that I posed? Is your answer that you are really not in favor of state control but against what you perceive as an overextension of federal control into area into which it does not belong - and you have your understanding of this perceived set of limitations on the federal government based on your personal understanding of the Constitution?

Is that the answer?

I am in favor of state control, because even under state control I am guaranteed my basic rights, freedoms, and liberties as I would under the federal government. The states simply have the right to exercise general powers (with several exceptions), whereas the federal government only had limited powers, again reserved only to what was enumerated in the Constitution.

As far as the basis of my understanding of the Constitution and whether it is a personal understanding of the document, I'm not sure where you're coming from. My basis of understanding as opposed to what other basis?

I ask not to challenge you - just to get a real common sense understanding as to why someone would feel more comfortable with the state governing than with the feds governing.

Again, it is as a means of checks and balances to prevent any possible abuse of legislative power while preserving the rights of the people and of the states.

What is the answer to that (b/c I think you feel more comfortable with states governing - I just really want to understand this). For example, Palin talks about how abortion should be left to states. Is she convinced that a state does more to protect the rights of an individual than the feds, for example? If not, what is this preference for the *state* to exercise power as compared to the feds?

What is the basis for the preference?

I hope this sums up your post in a nutshell, but as previously mentioned, the states have general powers, while the federal government have limited powers. However, our Constitution includes stopgaps to prevent the state government from overstepping its bounds and arbitraily infringing on the rights of the people. Essentially, what the federal government is doing (exercising general powers) is actually what the state governments should be doing, but not to the point of infringing on our civil liberties, which is what the federal government is doing.

So this issue is all a matter of recognition and respect of our basic human rights through the freedoms and liberties we exercise as allowed by our United States Constitution, the balancing of power between federal and state to preserve such rights and freedoms, and the enforcement of the Constitution to prevent infringement of such rights.

In 2008 the Constitution has been largely disregarded and/or manipulated to serve the federal government's own selfish ends, hence the numerous dilemmas our country is in today. My vote for Ron Paul served as an appeal for someone to actively (not passively or flippantly) restore our government to follow the laws as enumerated in our Constitution. I can say in all but absolute certainty that Obama and McCain has not addressed this core issue to a lot of America's problems at all.

And THAT is my primary point of contention.

Thanks,
SC

You're quite welcome.

KAP