I wish there was a choice on the ballot that says:
"None of the Above"
That would surely change (for the better?) the nature of political campaigns.
Candidates would have to start being honest.


I believe that it is illegal to promise/appoint a cabinet post in advance of the nomination. (I may be wrong about that.) Don't know if it's also illegal to announce a VP running mate in advance of the nomination.


Him and 68 other Nobel laureates in economics since 1969, inlcuding Milton Friedman (if you happen to like him).
I personally do not have a high regard for the Nobel Prize in economics. So far 69 Nobel laureates have done absolutely NOTHING to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world.


Thanks to Republican obstructionism in Congress.

The following article, an op-ed article in today's New York Times, is somewhat peripheral to the current topic. I include it because in a larger sense it is most relevant and symptomatic.

Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
by Greg Smith, Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm's United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The article is a scathing exposé of how the culture at Goldman Sachs declined in the 12 years that he was at the firm. He feels that he can no longer abide by the intense culture of greed that is in opposition to the best interests of the firm's clients.

The article is not just about Goldman Sachs, rather it is about the decline in our society which is also reflected in our politics (in the US at least). Politics in the US has become so intensely toxic and depraved that it no longer serves the majority of Americans. (Some trace this toxicity back to Newt Gingrich and how he alienated Congress during his term as Speaker of the House. It is no wonder that those who support Gingrich often show a similar moral depraveness.) If something is not done to moralize politics again, along with Wall Street, then we are in for very grim times.

Dick Prick Rick Santorum said something stupid again, and then lied about it again. The guy is clueless about the constitution and the history of the US (and Puerto Rico). How is this nutjob getting votes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-...myCFS_blog.html

He also wants to ban porn. Someone needs to tell him he's running for President, not Pope.

Being a nutjob and getting votes (or not getting votes) are unrelated.


I once read that the state with the largest proportion of its population that looks at online porn is Utah.
Somehow that tells me that if Santorum wants to ban porn then he hasn't a prayer of getting many votes from the religious right.

While campaigning in Puerto Rico for this Sunday's Republican primary Rick Santorum was caught sunbathing with his shirt off.

WARNING:
Photo of Santorum with his shirt off.
Santorum

Two men interrupted a Rick Santorum event in Illinois with a same-sex kiss, and were promptly ejected by security when the crowd turned on them.

Huffington Post

What are you talking about? This is yet another one of your nonsense posts where you attempt to force someone to argue a point they did not make (usually done because you have no response to the actual argument made). I have no said that the constitution should be free to evolve at the whim of the unelected or the unaccountable. What I did say is that it was designed to be a living breathing document that evolved alongside the people. They are in no way, shape or form the same thing.


No it isn't.

There is no inherent limit to government brought about or protected by the separation of powers. That's not how it works and I wish people would stop pretending that it is. The separation of powers only allows for a limited government if the different branches want a limited government if they don't then government can be as big and intrusive as it wants. The separation of powers is actually about ensuring that one branch of the government doesn't become too powerful and that is not the same as limiting government.


Only it isn't. For better or worse the Tea Party have a very definitive ideology that they've been seeking to impose upon the majority regardless of whether or not the majority agrees with it.


Who, exactly, do you believe has the opportunity to offer an alternative?


Once again it doesn't backfire if said VP announcement secures him the delegates he needs to win the nomination. There are more than two options open to him on that front. And once again it depends where the momentum is and the shape of everyone else's campaign heading into the convention.


I'm not sure if the VP announcement is illegal. Edwards spent most of '08 trying to convince Obama (and to a lesser extent Clinton) to announce him as running mate and secure the nomination and when that didn't work he moved onto general cabinet positions.


And that its an incredibly unpopular position (although given how hard his campaign has tried to bury it I suspect someone has) and completely unenforceable and would never get enough votes and would no doubt get struck down as unconstitutional if by some miracle he was able to get it passed.

It's not unheard of for a sitting president to fantasize about having an imperial presidency by limiting the power of Congress (with signing statements) and the judicial branch (by ignoring it and sidestepping it).


Considering that most porn these days is on the internet, if such a law got passed then any porn that isn't already offshore would simply move there. It's a stupid idea (like many of his others).

And they remain fantasies for a reason.

More proof that santorum will say anything thats politically convenient. And he has no problem lieing about it later. pfft

"Santorum endorses Romney"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KRP6-f7OY

And to think that Dick Santorum has repeatedly said that romney is not a true conservative, warns us that romney is dangerous blablalba... now it turns out he supported him last time round...

jeez theres nothing i hate more than a liar/hypocrit. I wish santorum left us alone and was a televangelist instead, like the other crazies.

edit: also this proves definitively that romney is a douche, because anyone who santorum could like is a douche.

Fortunately that little Napoleon is gone.


What gives you the idea that Santorum has ever liked Romney?
This politics boy! POLITICS!!!

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
[quote name='sanitynotincluded' post='1876301' date='Mar 14 2012, 19:51']No, you are pretending that a document which evolves at the whim of the unelected and unaccountable is the only alternative to a document which cannot be changed in any way, shape or form regardless of circumstance. Individual decisions, whether in isolation or collectively are irrelevant to the principle.[/quote]
What are you talking about? This is yet another one of your nonsense posts where you attempt to force someone to argue a point they did not make (usually done because you have no response to the actual argument made). I have no said that the constitution should be free to evolve at the whim of the unelected or the unaccountable. What I did say is that it was designed to be a living breathing document that evolved alongside the people. They are in no way, shape or form the same thing. [/quote]


it was not designed to evolve, it was designed to be changed through specific, discrete and deliberate actions. That you dislike reality makes you the purveyor of nonsense, not those who disagree.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
[quote]Seperation of powers is a fundamental limit on government. [/quote]
No it isn't.

There is no inherent limit to government brought about or protected by the separation of powers. That's not how it works and I wish people would stop pretending that it is. The separation of powers only allows for a limited government if the different branches want a limited government if they don't then government can be as big and intrusive as it wants. The separation of powers is actually about ensuring that one branch of the government doesn't become too powerful and that is not the same as limiting government. [/quote]

That argument is only sustainable if you presume to arbitrarily dictate what restrictions constitute limits with a blatant disregard for the English language. When enforced, the seperation of powers prevents any of the branches of government from being able to do whatever the hell it wants. It is therefore a limit.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']

Only it isn't. For better or worse the Tea Party have a very definitive ideology that they've been seeking to impose upon the majority regardless of whether or not the majority agrees with it. [/quote]

Except it is. You are attempting to portray the New York Times charicature of tea partiers as being reality.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
[quote]They have the opportunity to offer an alternative.[/quote]
Who, exactly, do you believe has the opportunity to offer an alternative?[/quote]

Anybody who is over 25 and has been a citizen for seven years in the case of the House of Representatives. A bit older for the Senate and Presidency, and in most cases younger for state legislatures, local councils et c.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
[quote]If Romney makes a VP announcement before he officially has the nomination, it backfires. If he tries to sign up one of the other two, they announce it and he's hit. [/quote]
Once again it doesn't backfire if said VP announcement secures him the delegates he needs to win the nomination. There are more than two options open to him on that front. And once again it depends where the momentum is and the shape of everyone else's campaign heading into the convention.[/quote]

It cannot secure him extra delegates procedurally. Bound delegates are bound to vote for a candidate, not as that candidate directs. If he announced one of his opponents, that candidates delegates would not become bound to vote for Romney. Unless you are suggesting that he nominate a non fraudulent stage hypnotist who somehow managed to put enough delegates under to change the result. There isn't anyone he could name who would electorally gain him enough delegates to outweigh those he would lose due to the perceived arrogance and presumption. Different candidates operate under different constraints, and Romney's is that he is perceived as the candidate of the "entitled" establishment, and that he has to avoid feeding that perception.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
[quote name='ParsifalNYC' post='1876320' date='Mar 14 2012, 20:26']I believe that it is illegal to promise/appoint a cabinet post in advance of the nomination. (I may be wrong about that.) Don't know if it's also illegal to announce a VP running mate in advance of the nomination.[/quote]
I'm not sure if the VP announcement is illegal. Edwards spent most of '08 trying to convince Obama (and to a lesser extent Clinton) to announce him as running mate and secure the nomination and when that didn't work he moved onto general cabinet positions. [/quote]

VP isn't illegal, Cabinet positions are. I forget the exact section, but the USC prohibits offering appointed positions as inducements. The Vice Presidency is nominally elected and so not covered.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 19 2012, 01:44' post='1878590']
would no doubt get struck down as unconstitutional if by some miracle he was able to get it passed.
[/quote]

That's based on the constitution as written. If the Supreme Court can discover a right to infanticide, a right to ban porn shouldn't be too difficult.

It wasn't enforced very well during our Napoleonic era.

Ron Paul on Jay Leno (including making fun of shirtless santorum lol)

Another issue where the Republican and Democrat establishment have epically failed over the years: War on Drugs. Again of all the nutjob Presidential candidates, only Ron Paul knows how to solve this. But as with everything else, too many corrupt government agencies and weapons dealers and mexican gangs will ensure that people like Ron Paul will never be elected to end their parasitic game by ending the war on drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-...a_b_179596.html

This is what government does. Politicians are a disease that then pretends to be its own cure. Thankyou, American idiots, for truly making life hell for lots of innocent Mexicans with your stupid failed policy.

But ofcourse, government never works for the people but for whichever crony pays them the biggest bribe.

Ron Paul is an extremist, and a liar. Next.

His supporters don't respond to me on Twitter anymore. 8 months ago they were on me like cat on tuna for saying there was no way in hell he would be the nominee. Now I say something and they are all totally silent. I admit...it's a little disappointing they don't respond anymore.

Wait a while. ezra_z will be back in a bit.

As much as I think that the guy is off the rails, I'm coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the most consistent and honest of all the Republican contenders (including the dropouts) so far.

Ron Paul: 'I'm Trying To Save The Republican Party'

The Republican Party has indeed been hijacked by the radical right. Ronald Reagan wouldn't stand a chance getting nominated today, he was way too left-wing and socialist for this bunch of crackpots (nor would Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president).

I completely agree that he is the most consistent and the most honest. But, as you're aware, he never stood a chance. His stances on domestic policy were well-received by most Republicans, but his foreign policy stances scare away the Republican moderates and unaffiliated voters (independents).

Paul wanting to end the "war on drugs" is something most Republicans would never get behind.

Many of the accusations of dishonesty are more a function of the accuser's prejudices than the accuracy of the accused's statements (I dare say that our colleague in New York will accuse the Republican nominee of being a liar several thousand times before election day, and on as many as half a dozen occasions he might even be right) On the consistency thing, I tend towards Emerson's opinion on the matter. The fact that Paul holds doggedly to positions such as that on Iran which might have been credible 30 years ago but have since become doolally is not selling point.

Naive.

Agree, but he is right when he says he actually represents traditional Republican policy and real conservatives and people who are really concerned about liberty should actually vote for him.

I don't agree with him on many things but unlike most politicians I actually respect him for sticking to his beliefs and principles.

The problem is that he has a very selfsh attitude to freedom which doesn't include any assistance to those outside the US who might like some freedom as well.

In my eyes Obama is now the coolest President ever.

The Ron Paul fangurls are delusional. This guy still won't admit to knowing, nor writing the crap that was in his newsletters? The guy is a crazy crook.

Why is that the USA's problem, everyone else has to deal with their own country, they can't depend on outsiders to gain freedom they need to take matters into their own hands.

Why is that the USA's problem? It depends on how small or large a viewpoint you want to take of the problem. There are the YOYO economists (You're On Your Own) and there are the WITT economists (We're In This Together). In my opinion the former is small thinking and selfish while the latter is large thinking (and socialist?).

I believe that since WW2 much of the world has looked to the USA for support in achieving freedom from tyranny and from poverty and economic calamity (e.g. natural disasters) because of its reputation for philanthropy combined with the nation's wealth and economic (and military) power. The US has a constitution and an economic system that is admired by many around the world. While the Soviet bloc had to build walls to keep people in the US has had to build fences to keep them out. A shining example in the US's generosity was the Marshall Plan after WW2.

However, US foreign policy hasn't always been honorable and its moral authority has slowly deteriorated over the years with much of it foolishly squandered in the last decade. Obama's election in 2008 was essentially the voters' call for change from the experience of the previous eight years. However, voters are shortsighted and gullible and easily swayed. We'll see what happens in November. The Republican noise machine is trying to direct its noise toward Obama now that its own internal slugfest seems to be quieting down.

Have you heard? The Republican convention will be in Tampa, Florida on August 27. The Tampa City Council is concerned about safety in the area around the convention hall. Florida state law prohibits the banning of concealed (loaded) handguns and the state's Stand Your Ground law has the City Council concerned. (The Stand Your Ground law allows you to shoot anyone whom you feel threatened by. You're not obligated to retreat if you can. No prosecution.) So in the interest of public safety they will ban water pistols and paint guns. (I'm not making this up. ) For truth in advertising, also banned are clubs, hatchets, switchblades, pepper spray, slingshots, chains, shovels and air guns, but not guns that shoot real bullets.

I can imagine that the National Rifle Association must be distressed that handguns will not be allowed inside the convention hall. The Secret Service has that jurisdiciton and not Florida state law. What's the worry?

I'm surprised that the slingshot lobby hasn't moved on this yet. Surely there must be something in the Constitution that protects their product too!

Republican selection 'over' Rick Santorum concedes defeat to Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama v Mitt Romney in November.

see here ……..

CBSNEWS.COM
10-Apr-2012 @ 19:21

You're forgetting Ron Paul


So Obama vs Romney? Interesting.

With Romney as the Republican candidate it will definitely be a very dirty and nasty fight with lies and misinformation.

With the apparent certainty that Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination we seem to have reached an historical milestone. The former liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts has spent the whole campaign disavowing his past in order to win the hearts (and votes!) of conservatives. For the first time in history both candidates could legitamately run on the same slogan: "I'm not Mitt Romney."

But who knows? As his politcal advisor Eric Fehrnstrom (Romney's equivalent of Obama's David Axelrod) put it on CNN last month, if Romney gets the nomination "Everything changes". “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

So in the true spirit of Mitt Romney, everything that he's said so far (or until the Republican convention) is inoperative and he starts with a clean slate. So maybe he will run as the real Mitt Romney. (But what's that? )

Is there any news for a third party candidate?

It would be pretty sad if the "choice" is just Mitt or Barack...
there needs to be a protest candidate like the Pirate party in Germany, although i don't like them either

Romney is no change. more wars, more debt, more surveillance, more broken promises

The choices are always sad. The "best" in America don't want the job.


... more lies.

and magic underpants!

more inflation, more partisan politics, more favours to special interest groups, more lobbying, more stupid government programs, more power to the federal reserve, more misery for the ordinary citizen...zzzzz

We really don't know what Romney will bring if he wins the election in November because he flip-flops so much to appease whatever constituency is before him. He's a huge unknown, but some of the things that he says are really scary.

I don't think anybody is paying attention to Ron Paul anymore.

No one was ever paying any significant attention to Ron Paul, bar Ron Paul supporters - he was never in with any kind of chance of getting the nomination, nor really challenging for it.

Romney isn't going to oust Obama; the Republican party might as well write him off as the best of a bad bunch, and focus on re-organising and re-unifying themselves as a party, ready to put forward a decent challenger for 2016, against whomever the Democrats pick to follow Obama.

In my opinion if RP had fair media coverage and they did pay attention (and if only RP was a more polished/concise speaker), RP might have won the GOP nomination. But ofcourse the establishment powers did not want that and made sure he had no chance.

Its hard to fight when the whole media propaganda machine have a smear campaign saying hes a nutjob racist extremist dangerous isolationist unelectable drug-loving old fool.

edit: Ask yourself why anyone who actually did some real research about RP's position was so passionate. His message has very strong appeal especially to the youth. No one apart from Goldman Sachs is passionate about Romney.
Also you say he had no chance, but he raised more money (from more individual donors!) than Santorum/Gingrich, and the media machine were constantly saying that Santorum has a chance...

Don't ignore the fact that this is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. $$$


It's not that GS likes him. Rather, it's that GS has him.

Which I think is one of the worst opinions of all time.

This will put Plessy v. Ferguson way back as far as bad judgements

It's the kind of judicial activism and legislating from the bench that sanitynot keeps complaining about.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/...a-colorado.html

I'm glad to hear that Paul will be injecting some life into the Republican convention in Tampa (and Gingrich too?), otherwise the convention will be a huge .

Over the weekend, within a period of 24 hours, 100 tornados struck the midwest states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa leaving catastrophic damage. Those states are all Republican strongholds. I hope the people (voters!) in those states realize that God is punishing them for their support of cruel right-wing policies that shower more wealth on the super rich and make everybody else pay for it.
God:

why ron paul will never win
its satire but it might aswell be the truth

Thought you might like this Charlie Chaplin clip, Ezra...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQDowv4wD8U...ture=plpp_video