OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by licker

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

Actually, I've heard this as well, and if it wasn't almost 1AM here, would be looking up the sources where it could be found, as I read it in some rather serious nonfiction not two weeks ago. Many of the attitudes found in the right, specifically those personified by Gov. Palin, don't seat well with the majority of scientests, nor do the many crusades some members of the right have fought against science. Seriously, most of the objections to the idea of global warming, stem cell research, evolution, environmental calamities in general etc have come from right (primarily the religious right at that, though big business has played its part at times).

Add to that the fact that scientests, as a whole, tend to be very irreligious, and they tend to step even further away from the right on many issues.

[licker]

Originally Posted by sum1lost

Actually, I've heard this as well, and if it wasn't almost 1AM here, would be looking up the sources where it could be found, as I read it in some rather serious nonfiction not two weeks ago. Many of the attitudes found in the right, specifically those personified by Gov. Palin, don't seat well with the majority of scientests, nor do the many crusades some members of the right have fought against science. Seriously, most of the objections to the idea of global warming, stem cell research, evolution, environmental calamities in general etc have come from right (primarily the religious right at that, though big business has played its part at times).

Add to that the fact that scientests, as a whole, tend to be very irreligious, and they tend to step even further away from the right on many issues.

What does being irreligious (though even that is an exaggeration) have to do with being a democrat?

I do believe that you are falling for the 'I saw a black bird, therefore all birds are black' fallacy.

Scientists may well have educated opinions on global warming or evolution, but that doesn't make them necessarily far left, other than if you want to stick that stupid spectrum individually on every issue.

Indeed, I have found most scientists outside of academia to be far more conservative with respect to issues of the economy or foreign policy than the average non scientist, but again, that doesn't necessarily place them by default into any one group.

Hell I work at a national lab in a community where the majority of people have advanced degrees in a natural science (as do I) and the electoral split is almost 50/50 for the county.

I've been at universities, and within the departments I was affiliated with the split was still not as extreme as is being touted. My observations showed that it was not those in the natural sciences who were left leaning, but rather the faculty in the social sciences and arts. That's not terribly surprising I think, but it doesn't support the assertion that a majority of scientists in this country are far left.

Most scientists know a far right nutter when they see one, and when topics such as ID come up they deal with that topic, not entire platforms of parties, but individuals within a party who may be promoting some agenda they disagree with.

[Lingchih]

Well, it is over folks. Let us try and work together now. There are a lot of problems in the old US.

[Tichy]

Ok -- I was misunderstanding your point. I was under the impression that you were promoting the theory of Obama's non-native-citizenship. If you're focusing on a procedural issue, ok, it probably would be better to have a set-in-stone credentialing process, if only to avoid circus sideshows like these lawsuits.

My 'whack job' assumption was on the basis of the "obamacrimes" website. The name of the site alone screams 'truthie' and beyond that it has the perpetually outraged tone of the most hardened conspiracy theorist. "Learn the truth about Obama's assault on the constitution!" Please. His supporter Lan Lamphere's site suggests that Rahm Emanuel is "the new face of Ernst Röhm." (Godwin, are you listening?) Berg may have at one time been on his rocker. Now, he ain't. Now he associates with people who can say "patriot brigade" with a straight face.