OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

Honey, I'm not being facetious - but the difference between those two statements is enormous. The first should be deeply offensive to every american citizen, in my opinion.

In the first instance, a judge is telling an american citizen he doesn't have the right to find out if a candidate is an american citizen. I think every american citizen has that right - and should want that right - just as we uphold every tenet of the constitution. This one guy paid his own money to investigate something, and paid the fees to have his day in court - and the judge said.. sorry an american citizen does not have that right.

This is VERY different than saying - your argument is fallacious and wrong, and it is hereby proved that Obama met the qualifications for office.

As for yours and other comments:

The best way to squash this would have been to provide a birth certificate to the court. Failing to do so only added fuel to the fire. The same suit has been brought in three separate venues.

Obama himself never had to appear in court - just like a traffic ticket, any representative could have presented the information.
Court fees are insignificant compared to the question - if it really was important, the prevailing party can seek to have the opponent pay ALL court costs (and expenses) for a frivelous suit.

For civil matters of this kind, there would probably not be a jury; this would probably be decided by a presiding judge, as it would be in both parties interests.

As for Gandalf's comment about the CIA: Call me an optimist. First, this as a jurisdiction matter would fall more under the purview of the Dept of Treasure (Secret Service), or the FBI than it would under the CIA, who by law would be enjoined from investigating it (foreign or counter intelligence only). Restating that, any cia agent investigating that would be subject to legal sanction.

So yes, I am optimistic that I don't believe the CIA investigated it. I also don't believe that ANY body actually has jurisdiction, which is why this is falling between the cracks. The party (as in party to a lawsuit) that does have presumptive jurisdiction is the democrat party, which is why it was name in the lawsuit.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Ok, well, I'm glad that's straightened out. Now that he's President, it's good to know that he's a citizen of the United States. Thanks for clearing that up, Chrispedersen.

Honey, you meant the comment flippantly. And you are not practising the tolerance you preached a mere two? posts ago.

First, Barrak is not the president of the United States, he's the president elect.

Second, this is the reason these kinds of things matter.

IF Barack was found not to be a natural born citizen (and no I don't think it will happen) it is entirely possible that his selection as President would be voided. His inauguration would not be legal.

And if you thought 2000 was bad, all hell would break loose. This is one of the reasons I thought these kinds of questions should have been resolved back in August.

[HoneyBadger]

Chrispedersen, lots of people aren't qualified to bring their arguments to the attention of others. There's nothing offensive about that notion, except to those very people who spend their time wasting the time, and patience, and good nature, of others, with their nonsensical-and at times malevolently motivated-flights of fancy.

We're forced to tolerate them, because our legal system is a benevolent one that acts to embrace and protect the broadest base of the population as possible, and because we're a generous and reasonable people who like to think of ourselves as open-minded. But it doesn't transform their trivial foci into anything grand or noble.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm tolerant, within reason. I'm not idiotic, or a floormat. You seem to be under the impression that I should embrace every idea, without a modicum of my own opinion or will or side, or else be damned a hypocrite. That's just not the case.

[licker]

Originally Posted by Darkwind

I've tried to stay out of this, but really. Comparing someone to Bush? That sounds a lot like ad hominem to me (plus, HB might like Bush and consider that a compliment, though it was fairly clearly, to me, meant as an insult).

Just saying...

Edit: Also, why compare HB to Bush? The current flow of the thread had very little, if anything, to do with bush. HB wasn't saying (s)he (I forget which gender HB is, unfortunately; sigh, and sorry HB) isn't like Bush, you just threw the comment out there. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Hey, he brought up bush first, in a negative light, that wasn't the first time I made this comparison to what I perceived to be a hypocritical position. If you want all the facts please read all the posts, else you are merely cherry picking statements out of context.

Besides how do you know I'm not bush or a member of his family and HBs insults towards Bush personal attacks on me???

Seriously people, this is an OT thread on politics, if you can't take a little fire why are you here? Besides, does HB have an issue with my statement? If not does he need a nanny to 'protect' him?

Hell you want to express a strong opinion about bush or obama or whomever (again, in the context of THIS thread) and not be willing to have some back and forth?

I dunno, I don't see anything out of hand in this thread, though there have been some strong opinions expressed.

[PashaDawg]

Hello:

I am quite pleased that Obama won.

However, I agree that our electoral system should be tweaked to foster the viability of political parties other than the two major parties. (I am satisfied with the overall system in the Constitution, with the three independent branches of government and the various checks and balances.)

To loosen the hold of the two major parties, I wonder if a simple change to the options on the ballot might help substantially. Here's what I suggest:

1. For each political office, the voter would get to vote for a first choice and a second choice. This would encourage voters to choose an "alternative" party first and then hedge with the second; and

2. The voter would also always have a third choice, which is "none of the above". If "none of the above" is chosen by the majority, then a new election is held and the previous candidates are excluded from the ballot.

I think there would be wrinkles to iron out, but I think these simple changes could have a profound effect.

They could probably be first instituted on a state level (e.g., state legislators and governors), perhaps by a citizens' referendum. In Maine, for instance, citizens can use a petition process to get laws passed by a referendum on the ballot and thereby circumvent the state legislature and governor. No doubt the two major parties would oppose these measures.

Pasha

[Tichy]

Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.

Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.

No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.

And now back to our regularly scheduled Monkey PD Monkey PD Monkey PD!

[DrPraetorious]

Also, he's a gay muslim socialist.

I'm a completely partisan Democrat - if we had a real leftist party in this country, I'd be a complete partisan for them.

Since I'm a scientist (as in, the natural sciences), this is not surprising - I'd say that I'm easily in the leftmost 5% of the general population but not even in the leftmost quartile of scientists.

So yes of course I voted for Obama. I was also working for my aunt (who is progressive so far as mainstream democrats go) on her election campaign. It's a nail-biter - she's down by ~100 votes but there are thousands of ballots left to count.

[licker]

Why on earth would you want to label most scientists as being democrats? and far left leaning democrats at that?

I can guarantee you that this is simply not reality.

Further with regards to the lawsuit...

Who does have cause to bring this lawsuit forward? I'd like to know if anyone actually has some facts to back their opinions or if its just everyone spinning their wheels.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Tichy

Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.

I'm not misunderstanding in the least. This is exactly what I've represented from the start. The suit was thrown out for lack of standing... as I've said on at least two occassions.

I just disagree with it. As an american democrat, whose candidate *lost* he is an aggrieved party. As Obama took delegates in PA it seems a reasonable venue; under civil law one of the services of suit is the location where the incident occured.

As I said earlier - I believe every american should have standing.

Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.

No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.

The 'fringiest whack job' was formerly the deputy attorney general for the state of Pennsylvania. With more than 20 years in the successful practise of law. So I don't think you can actually characterize him as 'fringe whack job.' In fact a fringe whack job could be denied the ability to practise law under the 'good moral character' provision required in most states.

If you wish to argue that he is a political hack - thats another question.

However, the character of the person bringing suit, as well as their motiviations are entirely irrelevent to strength (or lack there of) of the case.

Look, multimember districts were ruled unconstitutional because they diluted minority voting rights - and they were challenged by a minority voter, because they *theoretically* disenfranchised minority candidates.

Bergs standing - as an allegedly actually disenfranchised voter is at least as strong.

I'm obviously Don Quixote here. Unless someone doesn't understand my points, or asks a question I won't respond further.
But these are my points:

1. Every american should have standing until a court or similarly designated agency has determined a candidates qualification.
2. No federal agency currently determines the qualifications for office, to the limit of my patience to investigate it.
3. I think some federal agency SHOULD determine qualifications. Just as some state agency should determine state qualifications (And in fact they do in some states). Currently their respective parties determine it, and I don't believe this honor system which may have worked 200 years ago, is appropriate now; which leads to
3b. Conversely, I believe it is incumbent upon every political candidate to affirmatively prove that he meets the qualification for the office sought.
4. I think as a political decision it is curious that obama sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of standing, rather than putting the issue to rest by providing a birth certificate.
5. I think it was a mistake of him to do so.
6. You are quite correct. I think that *if* there was any significant likelihood that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that Hillary would have sued personally. (As a caveat, according to Berg, he only discovered the information by sending an investigator to Kenya.) But to me it is more a question 1. I think americans should have standing and 3b that every candidate needs to validate that he in fact does qualify.