2012 Presidential Campaign

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As expected:

Bah, you don't have to dig very far:

Four Wake residents charged with voting twice | abc11.com

That was a quick google in this area alone.

[JPhillips]

I have no problem with people being prosecuted if they violate the law. In these cases, though, voter ID wouldn't have mattered.

[JPhillips]

LOL...nope no need for voter ID verification.
Wouldnt want to piss of the zombies.

South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud during pri - WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports |

There's even less to this. All six of the names released by the AG have been cleared. Why not release the other 951 names and see what becomes of those?

In a news release election agency spokesman Chris Whitmire handed out prior to the hearing, the agency disputed the claim that dead people had voted. One allegedly dead voter on the DMV’s list cast an absentee ballot before dying; another was the result of a poll worker mistakenly marking the voter as his deceased father; two were clerical errors resulting from stray marks on voter registration lists detected by a scanner; two others resulted from poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter above or below on the list.

The attorney general’s office had only given the State Election Commission six names off its list of 957 names to examine. The agency found every one of them to be alive and otherwise eligible to vote, except for the one who had voted before dying.

[molson]

Does anybody know if government services require IDs? Or can I just walk up to the welfare office and get someone's else's check? (or are they always sent to a particular mailing address, or whatever). I'm just curious if the idea that "nobody would ever do that" is also ingrained in other government activity, or if it's just in voting that it's assumed that everyone follows the rules so we don't need any type of validation or anything.

[JPhillips]

It's not the same thing as getting a check. The kind of voter fraud an ID bill would protect against is unlikely to happen in large scale. To cast two votes you'd likely need to go to two different precincts and most people are too lazy to do that. For it to happen at large scale you'd either need a lot of people to simultaneously decide to do this or someone organizing a large group. After the voting you'd need to be certain no one spoke about it or you'd all be charged with a felony.

For a statewide election you'd want at least a thousand people to have any chance of changing the outcome and in most elections you'd need a much higher number.

Or you could spend money on registration and voter vans and get some of the 30-40% that don't vote to the polls. Or you could pass a voter ID law that keeps some percentage of previously valid voters from voting. Large scale voter ID fraud is a terribly poor investment compared to other options and carries the risk of a felony conviction.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not the same thing as getting a check. The kind of voter fraud an ID bill would protect against is unlikely to happen in large scale. To cast two votes you'd likely need to go to two different precincts and most people are too lazy to do that. For it to happen at large scale you'd either need a lot of people to simultaneously decide to do this or someone organizing a large group. After the voting you'd need to be certain no one spoke about it or you'd all be charged with a felony.

I think the voter ID camp is split into two groups. There's the ones who are trying to disenfranchise particular groups for political gain, and the ones who are easily alarmed by the former group and think it's a serious problem.

That latter group are afraid that without a voter ID law, any ol' illegal can waltz into a polling place and say "I'm John Doe, gimme a ballot" and steal their vote.

Which is something that I guess could happen on a localized enough level, but would be absurdly unlikely to affect the outcome of anything above the level of an election for dogcatcher. However, it's never the 'local' races that the 'OMG VOTER FRAUD' people are jerking on the chains for. It's statewide or national races, and as you point out, the level of organization necessary to pull off something like that would do an end run around voter ID laws in the first place (since, y'know, fraud on that level would require the complicity of the election workers, too).

[PilotMan]

Romney would rank among richest presidents ever - Yahoo! News

A well funded campaign you say?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you're in Romney territory.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Romney would rank among richest presidents ever - Yahoo! News

A well funded campaign you say?

I don't consider myself the biggest Romney fan but it's scary the narrative that the media is taking towards an "Eat the Rich" mentality with every "1%" news story lately. Must of missed the John Kerry stories a few years ago and the Michael Bloomberg ones now. John F. Kennedy anyone? So what... Romney's successful? Lets bring him down! Success? Not in my America!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't consider myself the biggest Romney fan but it's scary the narrative that the media is taking towards an "Eat the Rich" mentality with every "1%" news story lately. Must of missed the John Kerry stories a few years ago and the Michael Bloomberg ones now. John F. Kennedy anyone? So what... Romney's successful? Lets bring him down! Success? Not in my America!

You must not have been paying attention if you don't remember Kerry being portrayed as wealthy, owning multiple homes, being elite, etc. Ditto McCain (recall that he got slammed for not being able to answer how many homes they owned), Perot, etc.

Can't say that I was around for Kennedy, but this is not a new narrative. I wouldn't be surprised if he got the same treatment (although I do know that his religion was a wedge issue).

[PilotMan]

The thing that really caught my eye was the take the last 8 presidents, add them together, then double it. That kind of blows my mind.

[Swaggs]

Dola...

Romney has brought a lot of this on himself with his odd (displaced?) sense of humor during the campaign. Trying to bet Rick Perry $10K during a debate, joking that he's been unemployed for years, saying that he likes being able to fire people, etc.

He alienates himself and defines the difference between himself and "the common man" with the types of statements that he has made throughout the campaign.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't consider myself the biggest Romney fan but it's scary the narrative that the media is taking towards an "Eat the Rich" mentality with every "1%" news story lately. Must of missed the John Kerry stories a few years ago and the Michael Bloomberg ones now. John F. Kennedy anyone? So what... Romney's successful? Lets bring him down! Success? Not in my America!

Remember when Obama told us we should vote for him instead of John McCain because he owned fewer houses?

If that's the way we measure value now I think Obama's going to be worth close to nothing when it's all over, that guy's got some lucrative decades in front of him post-presidency.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I think the voter ID camp is split into two groups. There's the ones who are trying to disenfranchise particular groups for political gain, and the ones who are easily alarmed by the former group and think it's a serious problem.

That's how the latter group would like to portray it, but no, I think there's a third group that just think SOME type of identification procedure is appropriate when it comes to voting, who aren't motivated by any kind of disenfranchising.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't consider myself the biggest Romney fan but it's scary the narrative that the media is taking towards an "Eat the Rich" mentality with every "1%" news story lately. Must of missed the John Kerry stories a few years ago and the Michael Bloomberg ones now. John F. Kennedy anyone? So what... Romney's successful? Lets bring him down! Success? Not in my America!

Well his money is certainly not in my america!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The thing that really caught my eye was the take the last 8 presidents, add them together, then double it. That kind of blows my mind.

That kind of stuff isn't that eye opening to me because it covers like a 40-year period and most, if not all, of the prior presidents were long-time politicians.

It is like wrapping your head around the fact that the Pirates not being willing to keep Barry Bonds around in the early 90s. "All" it would have taken to sign him long term was $5-6-million per year, which seemed ridiculous for the time. Meanwhile, Alex Rodriguez makes 5-6 times that per year nowadays.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

That kind of stuff isn't that eye opening to me because it covers like a 40-year period and most, if not all, of the prior presidents were long-time politicians.

It is like wrapping your head around the fact that the Pirates not being willing to keep Barry Bonds around in the early 90s. "All" it would have taken to sign him long term was $5-6-million per year, which seemed ridiculous for the time. Meanwhile, Alex Rodriguez makes 5-6 times that per year nowadays.

Good analogy. Remember, inflation happens. Recall Austin Powers with Dr. Evil's demands for $1 million in the year 2000.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

That kind of stuff isn't that eye opening to me because it covers like a 40-year period and most, if not all, of the prior presidents were long-time politicians.

It is like wrapping your head around the fact that the Pirates not being willing to keep Barry Bonds around in the early 90s. "All" it would have taken to sign him long term was $5-6-million per year, which seemed ridiculous for the time. Meanwhile, Alex Rodriguez makes 5-6 times that per year nowadays.

I got the impression that inflation was already adjusted for. Especially considering that Washington and Jefferson were the top 2.

[ISiddiqui]

I think inflation was adjusted on the where he would rank list, but not on the add up the last 8 Presidents' list. Interestingly, in the where he would rank list, he would just beat out John F. Kennedy for 4th.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

That's how the latter group would like to portray it, but no, I think there's a third group that just think SOME type of identification procedure is appropriate when it comes to voting, who aren't motivated by any kind of disenfranchising.

But that's the thing.

Actually registering to vote requires government ID, which in turn requires proof of identity and residency to acquire. There's not a state in the Union that just lets you show up and say "I'm Jim Bob, and I'd like to register to vote," give an address, and be done with it. Hell, when I registered to vote in Wisconsin, I needed both my driver's license - for which I'd had to provide proof of identity and residency - as well as that proof of residency, again.

Now, when I show up to vote, and I say "I'm Jim Bob," there's exactly three ways for me to know the name "Jim Bob" is in that book. 1) I registered and am, in fact, Jim Bob or 2) I know Jim Bob, know he's a registered voter, and in what precinct, or 3) I'm committing fraud IN COMPLICITY WITH the poll workers. I know I'm not Jim Bob, THEY know I'm not Jim Bob, but they wink and nod at me anyway and give me the ballot so I can vote.

If the former, no voter ID law is necessary.

In the secondary case, voter ID law would protect somebody from stealing my vote in the abstract. In the real world, I have never, ever had a problem with a poll worker saying "Why, Jim Bob, you voted already." That's a problem that doesn't exist that politicians are seeking to solve with solutions that provide their party with political benefit.

In the tertiary, no voter ID law would HELP, because the fraud I'm committing does an end run around the idea behind the law.

But let's leave all of that aside for a moment and think about the idea of the 'provisional ballot.' Most states have this. I'd be shocked if any didn't. If you're attempting to vote, are registered, but are not showing up in the book, you cast one of these. It's basically "here's who I want to vote for, but don't count it until you confirm my residency etc." It's the same if you try to vote in multiple precincts besides the one in which you registered. You're not in the book, so your vote goes into the "might count" pile until they verify your identity and such. That's probably how most cases of voter fraud are eventually identified.

Election fraud basically comes in three flavors.

1) Large-scale fraudulently cast ballots. Dead people voting, busing from out-of-state, whatever other option you can come up with. This doesn't happen without significant and material support from a well-organized group. You either need ecosystem control over the registrars, the poll workers, and the judges (in case of legal challenges), or the ability to forge proof-of-residency/identity documents of sufficient quality to fool the registrars.

2) Ballot counting. Most election fraud allegations tend to come down to who's counting the votes. Did so-and-so 'find' votes that hadn't previously been reported? Were votes previously counted for one candidate or another lost somehow when recount time rolled around? Etc. Voter ID laws wouldn't help a whit with that.

3) Small-scale fraudulently cast ballots. This covers more ground, but probably doesn't add up to even a fraction of the potential of either of the other two. It might be folks who are a combination of confused and paranoid, voting everywhere to make sure their vote gets counted. It might be folks stupid enough to think that somebody won't notice matching names when provisional ballots get checked against the existing voter rolls. It might be somebody using a no-ID state to vote on behalf of their recently deceased relative. And it just doesn't happen that often.

Yeah, maybe you know the person who boasted of it, or someone who knows someone who knows someone told you that so-and-so did that. It's just not anywhere near efficient enough on a small scale to be worth pursuing. The end result, whether it be the result of motive or not, *is* disenfranchisement. The old and the poor, who often may not have a driver's license, disproportionately end up facing barriers to voting that others don't, and the truth of the matter is that demographically, those barriers emphatically favor one party over the other.

In Wisconsin, those barriers now include travel, with DMV offices in some heavily Democratic areas having been closed after passage of the ID law and offices in heavily Republican areas opened. If you don't have a car, or don't have a driver's license to begin with (either because you never applied or because you surrendered it due to age, etc), you now face a barrier in terms of distance traveled, time taken off work to get an ID you never previously needed, and the cost of missed work, bus ticket, gas money for someone who gave you a ride, whatever. And that's a barrier that Joe White Collar doesn't have to deal with.

I want to say - and I don't know if this was addressed or not, so grain of salt time - that the ID law in question here didn't require the DMV to make it explicit that the state will provide an ID free of charge for voting purposes (which Article I and the 14th Amendment combine to make necessary anyway - no poll taxes, which requiring a citizen to pay for ID to vote amounts to). Which, again, preys upon the poor and the uneducated. If they don't know that's available and the state is telling its workers "You don't have to inform them of that right," some of them will wrongly think it's a choice between a $26 driver's license or not being able to vote. I think the law faced legal challenges on those grounds, but I don't recall what the outcome of the challenge was, or if it's been decided yet.

Now, when I said it amounts to two groups - one group actively seeking disenfranchisement of disfavored demographics and another being easily alarmed by the former - I am in no way saying that that latter group is seeking disenfranchisement or that they agree with it.

I'm saying they're susceptible to their elected officials beating the scare drum to gain support for unnecessary actions. There's a difference there.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But that's the thing.

Actually registering to vote requires government ID, which in turn requires proof of identity and residency to acquire. There's not a state in the Union that just lets you show up and say "I'm Jim Bob, and I'd like to register to vote," give an address, and be done with it. Hell, when I registered to vote in Wisconsin, I needed both my driver's license - for which I'd had to provide proof of identity and residency - as well as that proof of residency, again.

Now, when I show up to vote, and I say "I'm Jim Bob," there's exactly three ways for me to know the name "Jim Bob" is in that book. 1) I registered and am, in fact, Jim Bob or 2) I know Jim Bob, know he's a registered voter, and in what precinct, or 3) I'm committing fraud IN COMPLICITY WITH the poll workers. I know I'm not Jim Bob, THEY know I'm not Jim Bob, but they wink and nod at me anyway and give me the ballot so I can vote.

If the former, no voter ID law is necessary.

In the secondary case, voter ID law would protect somebody from stealing my vote in the abstract. In the real world, I have never, ever had a problem with a poll worker saying "Why, Jim Bob, you voted already." That's a problem that doesn't exist that politicians are seeking to solve with solutions that provide their party with political benefit.

In the tertiary, no voter ID law would HELP, because the fraud I'm committing does an end run around the idea behind the law.

But let's leave all of that aside for a moment and think about the idea of the 'provisional ballot.' Most states have this. I'd be shocked if any didn't. If you're attempting to vote, are registered, but are not showing up in the book, you cast one of these. It's basically "here's who I want to vote for, but don't count it until you confirm my residency etc." It's the same if you try to vote in multiple precincts besides the one in which you registered. You're not in the book, so your vote goes into the "might count" pile until they verify your identity and such. That's probably how most cases of voter fraud are eventually identified.

Election fraud basically comes in three flavors.

1) Large-scale fraudulently cast ballots. Dead people voting, busing from out-of-state, whatever other option you can come up with. This doesn't happen without significant and material support from a well-organized group. You either need ecosystem control over the registrars, the poll workers, and the judges (in case of legal challenges), or the ability to forge proof-of-residency/identity documents of sufficient quality to fool the registrars.

2) Ballot counting. Most election fraud allegations tend to come down to who's counting the votes. Did so-and-so 'find' votes that hadn't previously been reported? Were votes previously counted for one candidate or another lost somehow when recount time rolled around? Etc. Voter ID laws wouldn't help a whit with that.

3) Small-scale fraudulently cast ballots. This covers more ground, but probably doesn't add up to even a fraction of the potential of either of the other two. It might be folks who are a combination of confused and paranoid, voting everywhere to make sure their vote gets counted. It might be folks stupid enough to think that somebody won't notice matching names when provisional ballots get checked against the existing voter rolls. It might be somebody using a no-ID state to vote on behalf of their recently deceased relative. And it just doesn't happen that often.

Yeah, maybe you know the person who boasted of it, or someone who knows someone who knows someone told you that so-and-so did that. It's just not anywhere near efficient enough on a small scale to be worth pursuing. The end result, whether it be the result of motive or not, *is* disenfranchisement. The old and the poor, who often may not have a driver's license, disproportionately end up facing barriers to voting that others don't, and the truth of the matter is that demographically, those barriers emphatically favor one party over the other.

In Wisconsin, those barriers now include travel, with DMV offices in some heavily Democratic areas having been closed after passage of the ID law and offices in heavily Republican areas opened. If you don't have a car, or don't have a driver's license to begin with (either because you never applied or because you surrendered it due to age, etc), you now face a barrier in terms of distance traveled, time taken off work to get an ID you never previously needed, and the cost of missed work, bus ticket, gas money for someone who gave you a ride, whatever. And that's a barrier that Joe White Collar doesn't have to deal with.

I want to say - and I don't know if this was addressed or not, so grain of salt time - that the ID law in question here didn't require the DMV to make it explicit that the state will provide an ID free of charge for voting purposes (which Article I and the 14th Amendment combine to make necessary anyway - no poll taxes, which requiring a citizen to pay for ID to vote amounts to). Which, again, preys upon the poor and the uneducated. If they don't know that's available and the state is telling its workers "You don't have to inform them of that right," some of them will wrongly think it's a choice between a $26 driver's license or not being able to vote. I think the law faced legal challenges on those grounds, but I don't recall what the outcome of the challenge was, or if it's been decided yet.

Now, when I said it amounts to two groups - one group actively seeking disenfranchisement of disfavored demographics and another being easily alarmed by the former - I am in no way saying that that latter group is seeking disenfranchisement or that they agree with it.

I'm saying they're susceptible to their elected officials beating the scare drum to gain support for unnecessary actions. There's a difference there.

Great post.

The only other thing I would add is that there are people concerned about your second point (who's counting the votes), and there are some proposals to deal with that (i.e., have a machine scan the votes when they are submitted on a paper ballot and have the paper ballots collected, sealed, and stored by people separate from the people running the machines. In the cases of random audits and/or challenges to the machine numbers, we would have a paper ballot trail to check. Much harder in that case to rig the machine.).

However, I see nowhere near the passion for solving that problem (which I think is much more likely to occur for the reasons you outline above) than I do for solving the "problem" of voter fraud.

And, sadly, that's because "fighting" "voter fraud" benefits one of the two major parties, whereas preventing fraud in vote counting does not really benefit one party or another. So there's no real passion for it by the powers that be.

[JPhillips]

Newt plays politics the way I play games. He won't win, but he'll destroy the person who took him out.

[spleen1015]

By the time May 8th rolls around, the date of my state's primary, are we going to know who the Republican nominee is?

[Crapshoot]

Given the ass whipping that's been happening to newt this week, I think we might know after Florida. The next states (Nevada, Michigan) should be slam dunks for Romney as well.

[Crapshoot]

Also, wTF Kansas? Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death - National Democrat | Examiner.com

[panerd]

Buts it's the Bible! Without it how do we fight Jihadists!!!!!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Given the ass whipping that's been happening to newt this week, I think we might know after Florida. The next states (Nevada, Michigan) should be slam dunks for Romney as well.

A lot of these states have proportional delegates, so I think you could see this race last for awhile, as Romney is going to probably take the lead but may have difficulty winning the necessary majority.

Right now, Romney is a little over 30% of the total vote, with Gingrich just behind him at 29ish%, and Paul and Santorum each around 16% (Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, et all make up the rest). I'm not sure I can see him getting over 50% of the delegates, but then again, I'm not sure who else can either.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Great post.

The only other thing I would add is that there are people concerned about your second point (who's counting the votes), and there are some proposals to deal with that (i.e., have a machine scan the votes when they are submitted on a paper ballot and have the paper ballots collected, sealed, and stored by people separate from the people running the machines. In the cases of random audits and/or challenges to the machine numbers, we would have a paper ballot trail to check. Much harder in that case to rig the machine.).

Unless you don't have a paper trail with the machines, which was one of the complaints with the Diebold voting machines a few years ago, if I recall. I was a little mystified why that would be the case. It seems like such a slam-dunk as a backup in case the machine goes wonky that not having that as a failsafe is just retarded.

However, I see nowhere near the passion for solving that problem (which I think is much more likely to occur for the reasons you outline above) than I do for solving the "problem" of voter fraud.

And, sadly, that's because "fighting" "voter fraud" benefits one of the two major parties, whereas preventing fraud in vote counting does not really benefit one party or another. So there's no real passion for it by the powers that be.

Well, yeah. The folks on the ground think that the fraud problem is greater on the voting end than on the counting end because that's the drum being beaten. If you think the problem is X, you're not going to agitate for a solution to Y.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

A lot of these states have proportional delegates, so I think you could see this race last for awhile, as Romney is going to probably take the lead but may have difficulty winning the necessary majority.

Right now, Romney is a little over 30% of the total vote, with Gingrich just behind him at 29ish%, and Paul and Santorum each around 16% (Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, et all make up the rest). I'm not sure I can see him getting over 50% of the delegates, but then again, I'm not sure who else can either.

From what I have read Paul's campaign plan is to stick it out until the end and hope to siphon off enough votes + anti-Romney votes to lead to some sort of deal at the convention where Romney is forced to adopt some Libertarian principles into his platform. (The logic being that Santorum just doesn't have the financial backing to stay in the race and Gingrich is the type of politician who won't stay in the race if he keeps losing primaries to Romney) Not sure if this is directly from his campaign or just someone's guess but it does seem plausible. I guess the threat being that Paul may not have enough support to win the Republican nomination but he does have enough loyal support to swing the election as a third party if they try and blow him off again like they did in 2008.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Kind of odd stuff. The more I hear the 'conservatives' rant and rave about how Romney is not a Republican, the more I think he might be just the 'Republican' I'd support. I'm sure I'll change my mind a few times going forward.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

From what I have read Paul's campaign plan is to stick it out until the end and hope to siphon off enough votes + anti-Romney votes to lead to some sort of deal at the convention where Romney is forced to adopt some Libertarian principles into his platform. (The logic being that Santorum just doesn't have the financial backing to stay in the race and Gingrich is the type of politician who won't stay in the race if he keeps losing primaries to Romney) Not sure if this is directly from his campaign or just someone's guess but it does seem plausible. I guess the threat being that Paul may not have enough support to win the Republican nomination but he does have enough loyal support to swing the election as a third party if they try and blow him off again like they did in 2008.

Unless Romney's negatives make him a loser with or without Paul. But I can certainly see Paul using his influence a bit before he retires.

[CrimsonFox]

The Muppets Respond To Fox News Attacks (VIDEO) | Addicting Info

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Kind of odd stuff. The more I hear the 'conservatives' rant and rave about how Romney is not a Republican, the more I think he might be just the 'Republican' I'd support. I'm sure I'll change my mind a few times going forward.

Unless you're significantly more center-left than I think you are, you might be in for a rude surprise in a prospective second Romney term, when he wouldn't be concerned with re-election and thus would govern according to his principles (such as they are) rather than saying what he thinks people want to hear.

[CrimsonFox]

The thing is...I thought Paul (years ago) was a moderate independent.

That's probably why he gets no support from republicans

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Unless you're significantly more center-left than I think you are, you might be in for a rude surprise in a prospective second Romney term, when he wouldn't be concerned with re-election and thus would govern according to his principles (such as they are) rather than saying what he thinks people want to hear.

Does he have principles other than getting the job? It will be fun watching the GOP explain why Romney is a principled conservative.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Does he have principles other than getting the job? It will be fun watching the GOP explain why Romney is a principled conservative.

That's what I've come to love about this process. Nine months of tearing down your candidates as unacceptable and then trying to build them back up as the only choice in three months.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

The thing is...I thought Paul (years ago) was a moderate independent.

That's probably why he gets no support from republicans

I admit I haven't followed the guy his whole career but I get the impression from old video clips that he is pretty much been a libertarian his entire career. (He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988) They don't like him because he is anti-war and anti-big government. Two staples of both the Democratic and Republican party the last 10 years or so.

[CrimsonFox]

And I must admit I really have no idea what the term "big government" means, but I've come to think it means absolutely nothing at all but a meaningless buzzword used as an insult. anti/pro war of course speaks for itself.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Does he have principles other than getting the job? It will be fun watching the GOP explain why Romney is a principled conservative.

well, hence the words, "such as they are." Either way, one of two things is true of Romney. Either he's a dinosaur as the last remaining Rockefeller Republican, or nobody knows what he really believes because he's a hermit crab who crawls into any shell he can find to perpetuate his career.

Either way, I don't think he'd fit what MBBF is looking for.

[CrimsonFox]

Someone that needs to GTFO

Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death - National Democrat | Examiner.com

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Either way, I don't think he'd fit what MBBF is looking for.

Give him a couple of months and I'll bet MBBF wll give it a good shot!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

And I must admit I really have no idea what the term "big government" means, but I've come to think it means absolutely nothing at all but a meaningless buzzword used as an insult. anti/pro war of course speaks for itself.

I think Paul walks the walk on being anti-big government. Not saying people have to support him for it but this guy wants to dismantle almost all of the federal government's power. (Close down whole departments, end personal income tax, end drug war, close federal reserve, cut a trillion dollars out of the budget in his first year in office) I do agree that none of the other Republican candidates seem to be against big government at all.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think Paul walks the walk on being anti-big government. Not saying people have to support him for it but this guy wants to dismantle almost all of the federal government's power. (Close down whole departments, end personal income tax, end drug war, close federal reserve, cut a trillion dollars out of the budget in his first year in office) I do agree that none of the other Republican candidates seem to be against big government at all.

but you keep using that term. What does the term "big government" mean to you? The term seems to be thrown around by EVERYBODY.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

but you keep using that term. What does the term "big government" mean to you? The term seems to be thrown around by EVERYBODY.

I think when Paul says it, it's anything not specifically stated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government.

[JediKooter]

I think what a lot of people seem to forget when they say the federal government has its hands in too many things or interferes in too many state things (and I'm sure in some cases it does), they forget about the 14th amendment to the constitution. So when a politician says they will kick the fed out of the states and blah blah blah, unless they have magical powers to make the 14th amendment vanish...good luck with that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Those people are also Luddites who are living in a simpler, less-complicated, less-interconnected world.

Things have changed in the last 200 years. Orders-of-magnitude more complicated.

The whole "strict Constitutionalist" thing to me is absurd. It's people burying their heads in the sand and trying to deny that things change.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Those people are also Luddites who are living in a simpler, less-complicated, less-interconnected world.

Things have changed in the last 200 years. Orders-of-magnitude more complicated.

The whole "strict Constitutionalist" thing to me is absurd. It's people burying their heads in the sand and trying to deny that things change.

Hence why they put in the amendment procedure.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Those people are also Luddites who are living in a simpler, less-complicated, less-interconnected world.

Things have changed in the last 200 years. Orders-of-magnitude more complicated.

The whole "strict Constitutionalist" thing to me is absurd. It's people burying their heads in the sand and trying to deny that things change.

I hear you on that one. It's as if all they have is a copy of the first version that came out and they are sticking to it regardless of any changes since. I understand that the 14th amendment didn't exist until the mid 1800's, but, to sit there and say, "this is how it was originally and anything after that shouldn't count", is just super dumb thinking in my opinion.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Those people are also Luddites who are living in a simpler, less-complicated, less-interconnected world.

Things have changed in the last 200 years. Orders-of-magnitude more complicated.

The whole "strict Constitutionalist" thing to me is absurd. It's people burying their heads in the sand and trying to deny that things change.

So the "tea baggers" calling Obama a "socialist" is a non-starter for any discourse but objecting to a 15 trillion dollars of debt makes one a Luddite? Glad to see the generalizations are only on the conservative side.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I hear you on that one. It's as if all they have is a copy of the first version that came out and they are sticking to it regardless of any changes since. I understand that the 14th amendment didn't exist until the mid 1800's, but, to sit there and say, "this is how it was originally and anything after that shouldn't count", is just super dumb thinking in my opinion.

Again...that's why there is an amendment process. They knew enough to realize things were going to happen that they couldn't possibly have the foresight to anticipate. The genius is leaving a clear outline as to what needs to happen to make those needed changes that the people want. The problem is that everyone ignored it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

So the "tea baggers" calling Obama a "socialist" is a non-starter for any discourse but objecting to a 15 trillion dollars of debt makes one a Luddite? Glad to see the generalizations are only on the conservative side.

Where did I say that objecting to $15tn of debt makes one a Luddite?

I didn't say that all Libertarians were Luddites. I said that strict-Constitutionalists were akin to Luddites (in that both would like to deny reality and progress in the world - for different reasons, but the same ultimate outcome).

You really pulled that one out of your ass man.

You know I've got respect for you and I even stick up for you, but you really took the martyr-complex to a whole new level here.