@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Ron Paul
-
Jen, you need to re-do your American Civics history…
You have the original standards for both the House of Representatives and Senate wrong.
-
I have the standards themselves right. I may have the houses off. Though, I thought the congress was whomever the states allowed and the senate was land owners.
According to section II, it appears I was right. The House (Congress) was elected by the huddled masses (whomever the states allowed to vote for their own largest branch of government). And the Senate was elected by the land owners/state assembly. (Section III)
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
That’s what they have listed at the Senate’s own website. If anyone knows how to get elected, I’d assume it’s the Senators and Congressmen, eh?
-
Senators were chosen by State Legislatures. There is no mention of “land owners” in Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1. This remained teh method for Senators until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913.
Representatives were elected by the people (those qualified to vote under state law). Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1.
-
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote. So it ends up being nearly the same thing. Land owners could register to vote, they elected the state congress and senate, the state congress and senate (the state legislators) appointed senators and appointed members of the electoral college.
So my POINT stands. The point being that one should feel lucky they can cast a ballot and those ballots determine HOW their electoral college WILL vote for President. (I believe almost every state has mandated that electoral college members must vote the way the state/precinct votes in the general election. I’m sure some industrious ne’er do well will find some precinct in the bowels of American society that still allows the one or two electoral college members to dissent with the people, but by in large, I believe almost all of them have to vote the way their regions (precinct/state, whatever) tell them too.)
-
@Cmdr:
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote.
That varied by state and commonwealth.
-
I think there has been more posted about the other candidates than the one on the title.
I do respect RP for his long-held stances.
It shows that he is more than a mere politician, a man of principal.
However, he is for troop withdrawals, so I can not vote for him.
With lives of our troops at risk half-way around the world, I prefer JM, who has been a steadfast supporter of our armed services.
One of the titles at stake is Commander in Chief of the USA, so other issues do pale in comparison. Troop withdrawals without mission objective achievement would force our allies to reconsider the current world order, it would also invite massive foreign lobbying on where our military resources get deployed, esp at election time.
-
One of the titles at stake is Commander in Chief of the USA, so other issues do pale in comparison. Troop withdrawals without mission objective achievement would force our allies to reconsider the current world order, it would also invite massive foreign lobbying on where our military resources get deployed, esp at election time.
I disagree.
We have no life or death situation, so it’s low on the totem pole. Domestic policy is always more important.
How can you protect a country if it’s in the dumps?Oh, and what exactly are those objectives?
-
Yes, Commander in Chief is a title at stake. However, the CIC has a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and a Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise him. POW experience isn’t exactly needed to make a good CIC.
As for Ron Paul, I only hope he is going to run as a Libertarian. If McCain gets the nomination, the Libertarian party can expect to pick up 60-80% of the Conservative Vote, in my most humble of opinions.
On the plus side, did you hear that Russia will be very “upset” if McCain gets the nomination? I thought that was interesting since it’s OUR president, not theirs.
-
McCain has been a bit of a hawk against the old KGB leadership currently in control of Russia.
I can see where Putin would not be pleased to see McCain in control of the US Nuclear Football (more importantly able to veto all that US cash keeping his country afloat…)
-
Hmmm… We have a chance to piss off the Russians here. :evil:
-
That’s actually kinda humorous. McCain wants to veto spending. When has he ever voted, since 2000, to reduce spending anywhere!?!
Honestly, I’d be working more at making Russia our second closest ally so that we can have a triumvirate around Europe and a staging ground on the other side of China.
Why? I don’t think the new nation of the European Union will be our ally much longer. They may not become our enemy, but I do not think we can trust them. (And yes, I do believe they will become one nation and lose their individual identities.) Likewise, I cannot trust China, not with their attitude toward people of faith and all the human rights violations they have - not to mention their desire to poison our children with lead.
So pissing off Russia may not be a good thing right now.
-
dangit jen, he was a pilot and a naval CAPTAIN. he has more experience than a POW and you know it. mitt will lose b/c someone like you supports him. dishonest to the core.
and we should continue to piss off russia. they dont deserve us not pissing them off. they have become fascists and the country as a whole doesnt care!
-
@Cmdr:
That’s actually kinda humorous. McCain wants to veto spending. When has he ever voted, since 2000, to reduce spending anywhere!?!
He voted against the Bush tax cuts specifically because they did not include corresponding spending cuts. That is a matter of public record.
Again, we are off topic on Ron Paul (who wants to trim about 1.5 trillion from the Federal Budget, knocking us all the way back to about the levels of the first Clinton Administration, as opposed to the $3.1 trillion of Bush’s current budget.)
FYI: President Bush has achieved something not done since Reagan… Doubled federal spending in just 8 years. Unlike Reagan who had a Democrat controlled house for all 8 years, Bush had Republicans in control of BOTH houses for almost his entire term in office.
Apparently we DO need a Ron Paul President who will use his Veto Pen in order to make ALL spending require a 2/3 override vote…
Pretty sad that THE MOST fiscal conservative President of the past 30 years has been William Jefferson Clinton…
Spending rose slower under Clinton than they did under Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43. And Bush 43 has actually surpassed LBJ for rate of spending growth, and is only slightly behind FDR (who had more than 3 terms in office to achieve HIS record).
-
Balung, this is your only warning for a personal attack.
Any repeats and I will recommend a month off ALL boards for flaming.
-
that wasnt even an attack on her. well not really.
-
that wasnt even an attack on her. well not really.
The way it was posted, it WAS a flame. It was aimed at a specific person, and it was intended as an attack.
Balung, you have a tendency to go overboard on PD. You are passionate about your opinions.
But on these boards, COURTESY is primary; and the flame and flame bait rules will NOT be broken without swift and severe consequence to the offender.
-
I stand by my statement. McCain is a more radical Bush. If you do not like what Bush has done, you will definitely not like what McCain will do.
They are both pro-Amnesty
They are both pro-Stem Cells
They are both pro-Choice
They are both pro-Environment
They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that militaryRon, unfortunately, hasn’t the slightest chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination. But if McCain does get it, Ron has an AWESOME chance of getting elected as the first Libertarian President in the History of the United States primarily because people like me, conservatives that is, will vote for Paul before McCain or Clinton. Heck, the polls even show that McCain’s supporters are primarily comprised of people who describe themselves as liberals. That should be a huge red flag right there.
Pauls supporters are primarily people who consider themselves conservative. (Same with Romney, btw.)
-
@Cmdr:
I stand by my statement. McCain is a more radical Bush. If you do not like what Bush has done, you will definitely not like what McCain will do.
They are both pro-Amnesty
They are both pro-Stem Cells
They are both pro-Choice
They are both pro-Environment
They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that militaryRon, unfortunately, hasn’t the slightest chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination. But if McCain does get it, Ron has an AWESOME chance of getting elected as the first Libertarian President in the History of the United States primarily because people like me, conservatives that is, will vote for Paul before McCain or Clinton. Heck, the polls even show that McCain’s supporters are primarily comprised of people who describe themselves as liberals. That should be a huge red flag right there.
Pauls supporters are primarily people who consider themselves conservative. (Same with Romney, btw.)
Bush Pro-Stem cells?
I guess his veto of that bill is irrelevant.
-
I was thinking the same thing Nuk…
-
Actually I don’t see the middle 3 choices coming from Bush Co.
Suggested Topics
