Who will the GOP and DEm's trot out for 2016?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He has a pretty extreme record

What is extreme about his record?

[IGotWorms 3,385]

What is extreme about his record?

 

Well, you're probably a huge fanboi, so we can start there

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, you're probably a huge fanboi, so we can start there

So you have nothing to back up your claims?

[IGotWorms 3,385]

So you have nothing to back up your claims?

 

Well, most recently he voted against the fiscal cliff resolution, apparently preferring economic ruin to any new taxes whatsoever. We can start there.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, most recently he voted against the fiscal cliff resolution, apparently preferring economic ruin to any new taxes whatsoever. We can start there.

Really?

 

So he takes the position that the Govt spends too much? Since we have been running $1 TRILLION + deficits for the past 4 years I can see how someone with your views considers that "extreme".

[DankNuggs 305]

Really?

 

So he takes the position that the Govt spends too much? Since we have been running $1 TRILLION + deficits for the past 4 years I can see how someone with your views considers that "extreme".

It's entirely reasonable and economically beneficial to run a deficit during a downswing, problem is you should run a surplus in good years which is politically impossible.

[gocolts 300]

I actually linked to the poll with those results so if ya didnt see that number its because you didnt look. seeing as how it is the latest poll I would say its pretty up to date.

We are talking about two different things. I was referring to simple polls that are "Pro-Abortion" or Pro-Life".

 

Those are the polls I am talking about, not should a SCOTUS decision be over turned. On those polls, it has been spit close to 50/50 for a long time.

[IGotWorms 3,385]

Really?

 

So he takes the position that the Govt spends too much? Since we have been running $1 TRILLION + deficits for the past 4 years I can see how someone with your views considers that "extreme".

 

It's not extreme to reign in spending. It was extreme to embrace the fiscal cliff as a method for doing so, especially given the current economic situation. Do you understand the distinction?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's not extreme to reign in spending.

Where has your Messiah even suggested this.....much less acted upon it?

[Broheim Steamrollers 0]

Putting aside the standard incoherence that is a hallmark of your postings, Bill Clinton cannot run again.

 

He's saying someone like Bill Clinton runs. hth

[kilroy69 1,017]

We are talking about two different things. I was referring to simple polls that are "Pro-Abortion" or Pro-Life".

 

Those are the polls I am talking about, not should a SCOTUS decision be over turned. On those polls, it has been spit close to 50/50 for a long time.

I am speaking to the fact that it is apparent that Rubio would actively attempt to sabotage roe vs wade. Which 70 percent of the country do not see as something that needs to be overturned or go away. His hard core stance on the issue is going to get him votes in his district but it is not going to play as well in any national election.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I am speaking to the fact that it is apparent that Rubio would actively attempt to sabotage roe vs wade. Which 70 percent of the country do not see as something that needs to be overturned or go away. His hard core stance on the issue is going to get him votes in his district but it is not going to play as well in any national election.

How would a President overturn Roe v Wade?

[Voltaire 4,573]

How would a President overturn Roe v Wade?

SCOTUS appointments.

[kilroy69 1,017]

He's saying someone like Bill Clinton runs. hth

Also the clintons could do something that has never been done. They could force a ruling by the scotus on weather a president that has used up his turns in office..... can run as VP. If they did they could run the country as a President/VP the likes of which we have never seen.

 

"Constituional scholars of all stripes have differing opinions on the question. The positions holding that former President Clinton cannot be nominated Vice President are fairly well known, however there are credible positions that believe the opposite to be true. There has been no declarative answer on this from the United States Supreme Court to date.

The U.S. Constitution, it could be argued, only bars those "ineligible" to be elected President, to be Vice President. The Constitition specifically states that to be eligible, that you must be a U.S. citizen, 35 years old or older and a resident of the United States for 14 years or more to be eligible to be elected to the office of President. Bill Clinton fits all the constitutionally mandated criteria to be eligible to hold the office of President. Therefore one could argue that he could hold the office of Vice President and then assume the office of President not via an election, but in the unfortunate event the elected President could not fulfill his or her term of office for some reason.

If one were a strict constructionist, then this argument would be very compelling as the 12th amendment explicitly uses the words "ineligible to the office " and what the criteria are that make you "ineligible to the office" are clearly outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines exactly what makes one "eligible to the office of President".

In addition the 22nd amendment, that was designed to stop a repeat of three terms in a row, which FDR accomplished only bars a person from being ELECTED President three times not from becoming President three times. If Bill Clinton was to become President through some other means than an election, he would not be violating the text but possibly the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. Note that the 22nd Amendment does not mention anywhere, the position of Vice President.

"The 22nd Amendment Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. ..."

Of course, former President Clinton would not be able to run for re-election once the term in which he became President ran out.

This is by no means a slam dunk argument, as with the majority of constitutional questions, there are arguments on both sides and if President Clinton ever did run for Vice President, or even be nominated or elected to a position that put him in the line ascension, no doubt legal challenges would be made to clarify this question constitutionally."

 

Edited because NV yelled at me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

SCOTUS appointments.

Been a lot of SC appointments by pro-life Presidents. Roe is still here.

 

What else ya got?

[kilroy69 1,017]

SCOTUS appointments.

ding ding ding we have a winner. RP.Not many of them were as rabidly anti abortion as Rubio would be and he would seem to be far more likely to attempt to change what he sees as Judicial Activism by his appointees.

[Voltaire 4,573]

The Constitition specifically states that to be eligible, that you must be a U.S. citizen, 35 years old or older and a resident of the United States for 14 years or more to be eligible to be elected to the office of President. Bill Clinton fits all the constitutionally mandated criteria to be eligible to hold the office of President.

 

These back to back sentences clash.

 

Bill Clinton does not fit the constituionally madated criteria because he is not eligable to be elected to the office of President. I hate saying it, I'd have been thrilled if he had been president the last 12 years in addition to the eight before that. I just know the rules...

[Lackman 0]

Ron Paul's kid might be the only decent choice among the two major parties.

 

I can't think of another halfway decent Republican, and every Democratic politician is a lump of sh!t.

[kilroy69 1,017]

Ron Paul's kid might be the only decent choice among the two major parties.

 

I can't think of another halfway decent Republican, and every Democratic politician is a lump of sh!t.

Rand Paul? You think he has a shot? Saying he is decent is a reach. He looks like the kid you wanted to kick the ###### out of as a child because he was always the coaches son. Shitty at everything his dad did but still just......tries sooooo hard. Also by the time he runs any politician that has said anything anti-gay in the past will be a political liability. Which is going to wipe out large swaths of the republican parties chances of running.

 

Volty if they pushed the issue and put him on the ticket they would at the very least have the issue heard.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Also the clintons could do something that has never been done. They could force a ruling by the scotus on weather a president that has used up his turns in office..... can run as VP. If they did they could run the country as a President/VP the likes of which we have never seen.

 

Constituional scholars of all stripes have differing opinions on the question. The positions holding that former President Clinton cannot be nominated Vice President are fairly well known, however there are credible positions that believe the opposite to be true. There has been no declarative answer on this from the United States Supreme Court to date.

The U.S. Constitution, it could be argued, only bars those "ineligible" to be elected President, to be Vice President. The Constitition specifically states that to be eligible, that you must be a U.S. citizen, 35 years old or older and a resident of the United States for 14 years or more to be eligible to be elected to the office of President. Bill Clinton fits all the constitutionally mandated criteria to be eligible to hold the office of President. Therefore one could argue that he could hold the office of Vice President and then assume the office of President not via an election, but in the unfortunate event the elected President could not fulfill his or her term of office for some reason.

If one were a strict constructionist, then this argument would be very compelling as the 12th amendment explicitly uses the words "ineligible to the office " and what the criteria are that make you "ineligible to the office" are clearly outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines exactly what makes one "eligible to the office of President".

In addition the 22nd amendment, that was designed to stop a repeat of three terms in a row, which FDR accomplished only bars a person from being ELECTED President three times not from becoming President three times. If Bill Clinton was to become President through some other means than an election, he would not be violating the text but possibly the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. Note that the 22nd Amendment does not mention anywhere, the position of Vice President.

"The 22nd Amendment Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. ..."

Of course, former President Clinton would not be able to run for re-election once the term in which he became President ran out.

This is by no means a slam dunk argument, as with the majority of constitutional questions, there are arguments on both sides and if President Clinton ever did run for Vice President, or even be nominated or elected to a position that put him in the line ascension, no doubt legal challenges would be made to clarify this question constitutionally.

 

 

 

Copy other peoples writings much? Ya focking hack

[kilroy69 1,017]

These back to back sentences clash.

 

Bill Clinton does not fit the constituionally madated criteria because he is not eligable to be elected to the office of President. I hate saying it, I'd have been thrilled if he had been president the last 12 years in addition to the eight before that. I just know the rules...

I think there are enough reasons to question his chances that they should do it. A hill/bill ticket would win in a landslide against any and all republican challengers. The dems need to hold on to the White house for a little longer in order to fill any spaces opened up on the aging high court and this would be the most assured way for them to do so.

[Lackman 0]

Rand Paul? You think he has a shot? Saying he is decent is a reach. He looks like the kid you wanted to kick the ###### out of as a child because he was always the coaches son. Shitty at everything his dad did but still just......tries sooooo hard. Also by the time he runs any politician that has said anything anti-gay in the past will be a political liability. Which is going to wipe out large swaths of the republican parties chances of running.

 

I didn't say he would win. I said he was decent. He's on point when it comes to economic issues. I like seeing him take on a more high profile stance going after the rampant incompetence Obama and Reid and their lackies.

 

You say that Rand Paul has made anti faggut comments. Cool. It's refreshing to hear a politician actually tell it like he sees it, not some politically correct tool trying to tell you what you demand to hear. Fock anybody that gets offended by anything. Offended people are focking stupid and I question their general worth to society. Why is it so hard for a political person to tell the focking truth, instead of banging her hand on a table in the face of questioning and yelling nobody cares about the truth and fock all Americans that want it.

[kilroy69 1,017]

Copy other peoples writings much? Ya focking hack

I separated it from my writing. what would you like me to do give you a giant. THIS IS NOT MY WRITING for those too focking stupid to get that point?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

I separated it from my writing. what would you like me to do give you a giant. THIS IS NOT MY WRITING for those too focking stupid to get that point?

 

 

Hows about putting it in quotes ya lazy stoner.

[kilroy69 1,017]

I didn't say he would win. I said he was decent. He's on point when it comes to economic issues. I like seeing him take on a more high profile stance going after the rampant incompetence Obama and Reid and their lackies.

 

You say that Rand Paul has made anti faggut comments. Cool. It's refreshing to hear a politician actually tell it like he sees it, not some politically correct tool trying to tell you what you demand to hear. Fock anybody that gets offended by anything. Offended people are focking stupid and I question their general worth to society. Why is it so hard for a political person to tell the focking truth, instead of banging her hand on a table in the face of questioning and yelling nobody cares about the truth and fock all Americans that want it.

 

That is fine. He can say any and all anti-gay comments he wants. In the world we live in today and even more important the world we will live in 4 years from now THAT is going to lose you a chance at being president. Gay rights have made great strides to this point and will continue to do so. Those that speak like him and "tell it how he feels" will find themselves a dying breed and all but un-electable to any high office.

[kilroy69 1,017]

Hows about putting it in quotes ya lazy stoner.

ohhhhhhhhh......fine.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That is fine. He can say any and all anti-gay comments he wants. In the world we live in today and even more important the world we will live in 4 years from now THAT is going to lose you a chance at being president. Gay rights have made great strides to this point and will continue to do so. Those that speak like him and "tell it how he feels" will find themselves a dying breed and all but un-electable to any high office.

Mebbe he will "evolve" like Obama and be against ghey marriage one day, and for it the next.

[jerryskids 5,295]

Rand Paul? You think he has a shot? Saying he is decent is a reach. He looks like the kid you wanted to kick the ###### out of as a child because he was always the coaches son. Shitty at everything his dad did but still just......tries sooooo hard. Also by the time he runs any politician that has said anything anti-gay in the past will be a political liability. Which is going to wipe out large swaths of the republican parties chances of running.

 

Volty if they pushed the issue and put him on the ticket they would at the very least have the issue heard.

 

If I had to pick a candidate now I'd go with Rand. I think he is more charismatic than Rubio, although others may disagree. I feel that way because he seems real, and I don't think he'll change through the primaries like Romney did. Rubio I'm not so sure.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAn1FWInBi0

[Lackman 0]

That is fine. He can say any and all anti-gay comments he wants. In the world we live in today and even more important the world we will live in 4 years from now THAT is going to lose you a chance at being president. Gay rights have made great strides to this point and will continue to do so. Those that speak like him and "tell it how he feels" will find themselves a dying breed and all but un-electable to any high office.

 

I don't see it that way at all. For instance, a majority of this country is very anti queer marriage. Even traditionally liberal states oppose it. That isn't going to change at the individual level or state level any time soon. It would be a huge mistake to make it a federal issue. Obama made comments about white people, Biden made racist comments about black people. And they are going to be in office for 8 years. But back to the original thought, gay rights are going nowhere fast. They have no credible spokespeople. GLAAD goes around mother focking any free thinking h0m0 not in line with radical agenda. They called Republican h0m0s being fagguts, for Pete's sake. I mean, h0m0queercycles make up about 2% to 3% of the population, and it's hard to imagine that this barely squeaky wheel will get the grease any time soon.

 

Attention span. Americans quickly forget everything.

[kilroy69 1,017]

Mebbe he will "evolve" like Obama and be against ghey marriage one day, and for it the next.

Oh don't get me wrong. Obama evolved on the issue because Biden forced him into it by painting him into a corner. However Paul is rather open about his being anti gay and once made a gay joke about president obama. So they are not the same. I do no believe that he could repair the damage he has done so far in 4 years unless he started to be a gay rights advocate today. I mean fully lead a charge in the republican party.

[kilroy69 1,017]

I don't see it that way at all. For instance, a majority of this country is very anti queer marriage. Even traditionally liberal states oppose it. That isn't going to change at the individual level or state level any time soon. It would be a huge mistake to make it a federal issue. Obama made comments about white people, Biden made racist comments about black people. And they are going to be in office for 8 years. But back to the original thought, gay rights are going nowhere fast. They have no credible spokespeople. GLAAD goes around mother focking any free thinking h0m0 not in line with radical agenda. They called Republican h0m0s being fagguts, for Pete's sake. I mean, h0m0queercycles make up about 2% to 3% of the population, and it's hard to imagine that this barely squeaky wheel will get the grease any time soon.

 

Attention span. Americans quickly forget everything.

Really? 4 states won gay marriage victories THIS election cycle. "In a December USA Today/Gallup Poll, the 53 percent who agreed that same-sex couples should have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples was nearly twice the percentage who said so in 1996." By the time the next election cycle comes around the erosion of support for anti gay politicians will be startling.

[Lackman 0]

Really? 4 states won gay marriage victories THIS election cycle. "In a December USA Today/Gallup Poll, the 53 percent who agreed that same-sex couples should have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples was nearly twice the percentage who said so in 1996." By the time the next election cycle comes around the erosion of support for anti gay politicians will be startling.

 

Is that among voters, or just general population.

 

The reality is that today's Republican party is made up of voters very vehement about economic issues with a smattering of hard core voters worried about moral issues. The Democratic party is made up of voters mostly worried about moral issues and not so concerned about economic issues. Any candidate that bad mouths gay isn't going to change who votes or doesn't vote for him. And when the economy is still in shambles 4 years from now, are we going to be discussing the silly gay marriage crap or how to deal with a 24 trillion deficit and 20% unemployment? Gay issues are nearly completely irrelevant.

 

Besides, the poll question is flawed. Right now, same sex couples have the exact same marriage rights as hetero couples. They can both marry people of the opposite sex. What the gheys want is special privilege rights, above and beyond what everybody else has. They want to be equal, yet have more stuff when convenient instead of being equal. They can't make up their minds. And their fight would ultimately lead to the discrimination against single people. If they win, everybody loses.

[kilroy69 1,017]

 

Besides, the poll question is flawed. Right now, same sex couples have the exact same marriage rights as hetero couples. They can both marry people of the opposite sex.

What an epic dipsh!t. Ya wanna toss in a little "god said adam and eve not adam and steve" while you are at it?

[Lackman 0]

What an epic dipsh!t. Ya wanna toss in a little "god said adam and eve not adam and steve" while you are at it?

 

God has nothing to do with it. It's free will. Everybody has a choice. Some people may have an urge to a fetish, like the 'mos, but that's on them. Therefore, God is not a part of the discussion.

 

I simply don't think making law to reward or grant privilege to a group of people is appropriate.

 

The whole concept is ridiculous and should be discontinued until the divorce courts are overhauled to reflect modern family situations instead of giving the broad all the money, the kids and alimony for life no matter the circumstances while the man lives destitute for the rest of his life.

[kilroy69 1,017]

God has nothing to do with it. It's free will. Everybody has a choice. Some people may have an urge to a fetish, like the 'mos, but that's on them. Therefore, God is not a part of the discussion.

 

I simply don't think making law to reward or grant privilege to a group of people is appropriate.

 

The whole concept is ridiculous and should be discontinued until the divorce courts are overhauled to reflect modern family situations instead of giving the broad all the money, the kids and alimony for life no matter the circumstances while the man lives destitute for the rest of his life.

I will be happy when people like you die off and out. Which is happening at an accelerated rate....thankfully.

[Lackman 0]

I will be happy when people like you die off and out. Which is happening at an accelerated rate....thankfully.

 

Listen, Archie Bunker, you may support discrimination against single people, but I won't stand for it.

 

Interesting story from last week. Joannie, Erin Moran, just left her husband for a woman. She was out in public gloating how she was tired of being married to a man who didn't earn enough money for a living, so she was going to become a lesbian now. Born that way.

[FeelingMN 273]

Rand Paul puts his personal beliefs aside, says the Feds don't care who marries who and legally recognizes the union of two consenting adults and leaves the issue of "marriage" for the churches to figure out.

 

We can then start tackling more pressing issues which is actually the job of the Federal focking government.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Joannie doesn't love Chachi?

 

Also, did I miss Kilroy's coming out party?

[FeelingMN 273]

Joannie doesn't love Chachi?

 

Also, did I miss Kilroy's coming out party?

 

Joanie loves chach now.

[kilroy69 1,017]

I am a straight advocate. I believe you are born gay the same as you are born white or black and it is a civil rights issue.