RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


VideoAdminGamma -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/23/2012 3:09:06 PM)

Fast Reply

Please refrain from straying off topic and making comments directed at other posters.

Thank you for your contribution to the forums,
VideoAdminGamma




truckinslave -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 6:50:45 AM)

quote:

Each state has their own rules in regards to that. Surely you arent going to argue that states dont have the right to make those rules.


I may have been unclear in my original response to your post:

I would love to see private donations and PACs disallowed. Give them money from the government, a set amount for every candidate.. and when its gone... its gone.

Instead of asking "Who decides who gets on the ballot?" perhaps I should have asked: "Who decides who gets the 'set amount' of money?"




Lucylastic -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 6:52:11 AM)

THat does make much more sense now




tazzygirl -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 7:25:02 AM)

quote:

Instead of asking "Who decides who gets on the ballot?" perhaps I should have asked: "Who decides who gets the 'set amount' of money?"


I agree, that does make more sense. And I can see your point. any tom dick or harry could run.

First come, first served? Sure would take away the wishy washy bs we have seen this year.. will I, wont I? oops... too late.. no funds for you!




DarkSteven -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 7:29:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I would love to see private donations and PACs disallowed. Give them money from the government, a set amount for every candidate.. and when its gone... its gone.

Instead of asking "Who decides who gets on the ballot?" perhaps I should have asked: "Who decides who gets the 'set amount' of money?"


The obvious abuse is when I apply to be a candidate and hand the government freebie to my brother and tell him to buy media time.  He spends 20% of the money on media buys and takes 80% as his consulting fee.

As you said, truckinslave, how do you decide who's legit?  How would Randall Terry and Gary Johnson be classified - serious candidates or not?




DomYngBlk -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 7:52:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

All the current articles keep talking about who will end up with the majority of GOP electoral votes.  What if...

If NO candidate wins a majority of votes cast, it goes to multiple ballots.  That destroyed the Dems in 1968, and the Dems in 1968 were a lot stronger and more cohesive than the GOP is today.

The primary is damaging enough so far.  In order to attack Romney, Gingrich is turning the conventional GOP platform plank of free commerce on its ear.  He's also undermining the concept of capital gains being taxed less than ordinary income, by pointing out that Mitt pays only 15% taxes.  Ron Paul's supporters are complaining (correctly IMO) that Paul's not getting enough coverage.  Santorum's trying to establish himself as the sole true conservative and is trying to claim that a moderate would have no chance in the general.  In other words, each is peddling his peculiar brand of reality.  I expect Mitt to take off the gloves (har har) soon, and begin trashing Gingrich in negative ads.

Unless one of the Final Four withdraws, I expect Paul to pull in 10%-20%.  Santorum will pull 15%-25%.  That leaves Gingrich and Romney only 55%-75% between them, and it's not inconceivable that neither one will get the magic 50%.



I smell jeb bush coming to the "rescue"




DarkSteven -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 8:25:42 AM)

I made a mistake.  I had thought that the 1968 Democratic convention was not decided on the first ballot.  Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968), Humphrey took it on the first ballot.  However, the Democratic primary was badly fractured.  Note that Humphrey, while winning the electoral vote, only received 2.21%  of the popular vote!

The similarities between the 1968 Dem primary and the 2012 GOP primary are striking.  The fields are bitterly factionalized.  in 1968, per Wiki:

With Johnson's withdrawal, the Democratic Party quickly split into four factions, each of which distrusted the other three.
  • The first faction comprised labor unions and big-city party bosses (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley). This group had traditionally controlled the Democratic Party since the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and they feared their loss of control over the party. After Johnson's withdrawal this group rallied to support Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's Vice President; it was also believed that President Johnson himself was covertly supporting Humphrey, despite his public claims of neutrality.
  • The second faction, which rallied behind Senator Eugene McCarthy, was composed of college students, intellectuals, and upper-middle-class whites who had been the early activists against the war in Vietnam; they perceived themselves as the future of the Democratic Party.
  • The third group was primarily composed of Catholics, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other racial and ethnic minorities as well as several antiwar groups; these groups rallied behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy.
  • The fourth group consisted of white Southern Democrats, or "Dixiecrats". Some members of this group (probably older ones remembering the New Deal's positive impact upon rural areas) supported Vice President Humphrey, but many of them would rally behind George C. Wallace and the Alabama governor's third-party campaign in the general election.
In the current GOP race, we have
the moderates, who support Romney;
the libertarians, who support Paul;
the social conservatives and the conservative wingnuts, who are split between Santorum and Gingrich;
those who simply want the candidate most able to defeat Obama, who are split between Romney and Gingrich although Santorum is actively courting them;
and the anybody-but-Romneys, who are split between the other three. 
Romney is trying to create an anybody-but-Gingrich faction, which presumably would give him most of their support. 

All we need is a massive protest at the GOP convention by Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters who feel marginalized, and the parallel would be complete except for the assassination.  We even have a weak sitting President and an unpopular war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I smell jeb bush coming to the "rescue"


That would be political suicide for the GOP.  To have an outsider come and take the nomination away from the current four candidates would lay the GOP open to charges of political machine tactics and smoke-filled rooms.  The GOP cannot afford to alienate its voters further.




Moonhead -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 8:31:37 AM)

If Jeb was electable, surely they'd have put him up as the candidate in 2000, rather than his idiot brother?




DomYngBlk -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 9:09:40 AM)

Supposedly, Bar wanted the idiot to be president first.......




Moonhead -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 9:25:38 AM)

That'd be as good an explanation as any I suppose.
Jeb had blotted his copybook a few times when he was governing Florida, though. There was quite a fuss about racist comments, iirc.




RacerJim -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 9:42:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

All of these plans that I've seen are just ridiculously stupid.
Let's try this one....
Who decides who gets to be on the ballot?


Each state has their own rules in regards to that. Surely you arent going to argue that states dont have the right to make those rules.

Tell that to Obama. In his motion to quash a subponea compelling his appearance at a hearing before an Admistrative Law Judge to determine his eligiblity to be on the ballot Obama, via his lawyer, argued that States don't have the right to make that determination.




tazzygirl -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:07:57 AM)

Well, this isnt a thread about Obama, its a thread about the GOP. I am sure the mods will overlook that though.

Second, did Obama get away with that line of logic? No, he hasnt. Georgia is refusing to squash the subpoena.

Third, the Constitution sets out the requirements for running for President. The Georgia law allows those to be challenged. It does not set the requirements.

Now, here is the basis for the Georgia challenge...

Next Thursday our argument will be very simple:

Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen
The Constitution requires that both of Obama’s parents be U.S. citizens
Obama is therefore not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President
Accordingly, the Secretary of State of Georgia can not place Obama’s name on the ballot


This is going to bite them in the ass.




mnottertail -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:22:51 AM)

Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen
The Constitution requires that both of Obama’s parents be U.S. citizens
Obama is therefore not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President
Accordingly, the Secretary of State of Georgia can not place Obama’s name on the ballot


Uhhhhhhhhhhhh it will probably be dismissed as frivoulous where it counts, there is no such injunctive in the constitution.




tazzygirl -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:24:41 AM)

Our strategy is to keep it simple. The qualifications for President are that the candidate be:

a natural born Citizen
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (this no longer applies because there are no citizens that were alive at the time the Constitution was adopted),
and be the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

We concede Obama fulfills the last two qualifications. However, Obama can never fulfill the first qualification because his father was never a U.S. Citizen. Interestingly, the Senate website explaining these qualifications says,


http://obamaballotchallenge.com/atlanta-weldon-obama-ballot-challenge-status-one-week-to-go





tazzygirl -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:31:15 AM)

And the law pertaining to that is...

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

But, there is also a back door. Recall, Obama's father was already married at the time he married Obama's mother, as the story goes.




mnottertail -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:45:44 AM)

and he is natural born (since it has never been defined or argued and resolved what that is, and is unlikely to become other than a tortured definition that will insure there is no seminal case issuing from SCOTUS that would revoke citizenry and disenfranchise several million current US citizens, and is a citizen of the United States.

Note that the wording is OR, but other precedents have conspired to render it as AND. 




tazzygirl -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 10:57:50 AM)

The problem, as I see it, is that a woman or a man who are US citizens must be in the US (this is assuming they are married to someone foreign) until they are 19.

What happens to the 18 year old who is traveling on her honeymoon and delivers while abroad? It can happen. So how long does one have to be out of the country to be considered violating this law?




VideoAdminGamma -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 12:00:44 PM)

Could someone direct me to where this topic is being discussed? If I do a search, I find several areas that the current discussion has derailed many topics.

Please remain on topic.

Thank you for your contributions to the forums,
VideoAdminGamma


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

All the current articles keep talking about who will end up with the majority of GOP electoral votes.  What if...

If NO candidate wins a majority of votes cast, it goes to multiple ballots.  That destroyed the Dems in 1968, and the Dems in 1968 were a lot stronger and more cohesive than the GOP is today.

The primary is damaging enough so far.  In order to attack Romney, Gingrich is turning the conventional GOP platform plank of free commerce on its ear.  He's also undermining the concept of capital gains being taxed less than ordinary income, by pointing out that Mitt pays only 15% taxes.  Ron Paul's supporters are complaining (correctly IMO) that Paul's not getting enough coverage.  Santorum's trying to establish himself as the sole true conservative and is trying to claim that a moderate would have no chance in the general.  In other words, each is peddling his peculiar brand of reality.  I expect Mitt to take off the gloves (har har) soon, and begin trashing Gingrich in negative ads.

Unless one of the Final Four withdraws, I expect Paul to pull in 10%-20%.  Santorum will pull 15%-25%.  That leaves Gingrich and Romney only 55%-75% between them, and it's not inconceivable that neither one will get the magic 50%.






TheHeretic -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 9:05:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
 

All we need is a massive protest at the GOP convention by Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters who feel marginalized, and the parallel would be complete except for the assassination.  We even have a weak sitting President and an unpopular war.




I'm still not buying the parallel to '68, Steve. I think your analysis of the current situation in the R primary is good, but that you are massively understating the social revolution of the day, and the role of that in the divisions. Nothing comparable exists in today's Republican environment, or on the national scene. The Tea Party? Pfft. They came, wore silly hats, and packed out their trash. It was hardly a turn on, tune in, and drop out, counterculture. Will Romney's moderate allies in Florida have the protesting Paulites beaten in the streets?





TheHeretic -> RE: The possibility that the GOP does NOT want to face. (1/24/2012 9:14:14 PM)

This was the 1968 convention. I just don't see where we have the makings of a repeat.



[image]local://upfiles/409734/7A81402071374F4791064F58BDF259FA.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125