United States Presidential Election, 2012

[Stargatedalek]

I thought he dropped out?
I meant for real not joke candidate...

He did try to run for real in the 2008 Republican primary. But only in his home state of South Carolina.

If I remember correctly, he got his ass handed to him.

I thought he asked for his fans to vote for Herman Cain in the 2008 Republican primary for SC?

thats what I thought

 

[Specific Neptune]

I voted for Mitt Romney, so I'm not particularly happy right now. But, to quote Romney himself (his concession speech): "This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation."

Good luck, Mr. President.

Holy shit it's KPH


Mr. KPH, can I get your autograph, please?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm not really sure what to say, because this is a matter of which methods are preferred to achieve essentially the same results. This is the sort of debate, however, that I wish was more common in politics, because both sides want the same thing and it's just a civil discussion of which methods should be used to get there.

also i have to go so i can't really elaborate any further

just going to say that i was about to respond to your post

and then smb basically said everything i was going to say, so

Yeah. That's the difference between the Democrat party and the Libertarian party - tighter federal government, which is what you're proposing, or state's rights which is what we're in favor of.

The Constitution is actually designed to put the states above the federal government (see the Tenth Amendment), which makes larger government unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's no check to the Supreme Court by the states, and the Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government so...

 

[Stargatedalek]

and THAT is why Canadian politics are simpler, Harper gets what he wants, there you have it Canadian politics in full

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

@redacted: I'm not really sure what to say, because this is a matter of which methods are preferred to achieve essentially the same results. This is the sort of debate, however, that I wish was more common in politics, because both sides want the same thing and it's just a civil discussion of which methods should be used to get there.

also i have to go so i can't really elaborate any further

just going to say that i was about to respond to your post

and then *redacted* basically said everything i was going to say, so

Yeah. That's the difference between the Democrat party and the Libertarian party - tighter federal government, which is what you're proposing, or state's rights which is what we're in favor of.

The Constitution is actually designed to put the states above the federal government (see the Tenth Amendment), which makes larger government unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's no check to the Supreme Court by the states, and the Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government so...

Well, I don't think that any government, state or federal, should intrude into people's personal lives and create the 1984-esque dystopia that many libertarians seem to believe is inevitable. The reason I tend to think that the federal government should be stronger and the states' governments should be weaker is because it's so much harder to create that sort of dystopia on a federal level, since the eyes of the country are on you. I'm not saying no good comes of states' rights (gay marriage is, slowly but surely, being passed all across the country thanks to this) but there are some negative things that come with it that ought to be brought to light and be exposed in the media before the country moves in a more libertarian direction which could potentially enable things to get even worse.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

It's still unconstitutional. And this is really a greater level of democracy, since state can decide state affairs instead of nation deciding state affairs.

 

[Stargatedalek]

but it does allow some states to pass laws the Federal government doesn't approve of, or to refuse certain laws

 

[Dr. Javelin]

And that's a bad thing because...?

 

[Stargatedalek]

And that's a bad thing because...?

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovustxcruelty.htm
and other States/rules as well

 

[Tyrell Badd]

Well, I voted Romney for those of you who care. Please don't bother to berate me about it or ask why. Not a single fuck will be given.

I was going to ask why, just out of curiosity, but it appears you're being a dick, so I won't..

Yup, I'm a dick for having a different opinion than you and everyone else. But it's ok, I predicted that if anyone here is going to call me out it'd be you.

I was talking about you being overly aggressive for no apparent reason, I don't give a fuck who you voted for. Sorry if I phrased that badly (I did).

It's ok, the only reason I worded it like that was because I thought someone would drag me into some overblown political debate and then preach to me why Romney is bad.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

And that's a bad thing because...?

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovustxcruelty.htm
and other States/rules as well

So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.

If you're worried about animal cruelty in Texas, then how about looking at a more important problem like how Apple gets away with abusing their human workers in their Chinese manufacturing facilities.

 

[Stargatedalek]

And that's a bad thing because...?

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovustxcruelty.htm
and other States/rules as well

So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.

If you're worried about animal cruelty in Texas, then how about looking at a more important problem like how Apple gets away with abusing their human workers in their Chinese manufacturing facilities.

that was just a random example, and yes Apple is evil, nuff said bout them

 

[KPH2293]

Holy crap I didn't know you still came on the forum.

Yeah, he emerges from the dark recesses of the Internet every now and again.

That's one way to describe it. I look at the forum from time-to-time, and this topic caught my attention because I followed the election closely.

Holy shit it's KPH


Mr. KPH, can I get your autograph, please?

Certainly: KPH2293

I'm sorry, that's the most creative reply I can think of at the moment. Nice to see everybody again.

On a semi-related note, I descend from Redfield Proctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_Proctor). He served as Secretary of War under President Benjamin Harrison.

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

unconstitutional

bolding ftw

 

[Dr. Javelin]

unconstitutional

bolding ftw

Nobody cares for the Constitution anymore...

 

[Contra(dictory)]

Nobody cares for the Constitution anymore...

 

[Garlic Man]

The Constitution is actually designed to put the states above the federal government (see the Tenth Amendment), which makes larger government unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's no check to the Supreme Court by the states, and the Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government so...

What? No.

Federalism is a sharing of power between state and national government. Where in the constitution does it ever say states are above the federal government? The 10th amendment simply addresses reserved powers for the states.

 

[Pokemon DP]

It's ok, the only reason I worded it like that was because I thought someone would drag me into some overblown political debate and then preach to me why Romney is bad.

don't worry, you're still bad for liking kirby's epic yarn

 

[Dr. Javelin]

The Constitution is actually designed to put the states above the federal government (see the Tenth Amendment), which makes larger government unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's no check to the Supreme Court by the states, and the Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government so...

What? No.

Federalism is a sharing of power between state and national government. Where in the constitution does it ever say states are above the federal government? The 10th amendment simply addresses reserved powers for the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I meant that the states are above the federal government when the federal government has not been delegated that authority by the Constitution.

 

[Garlic Man]

So you're saying the states have more power over the powers they have, compared to the federal powers that the federal government has more power over


youdontsay.jpg


You stated the Constitution is designed to put the states above the federal government, therefore a large government is unconstitutional. Your reply doesn't explain how the constitution is designed to put states above federal government, you simply defined what a reserved power is.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

no no no

i was saying that i wasn't saying that the states are above the federal government where the federal government has authority as delegated by the constitution

but in everything else the states are above the federal government's decisions as delegated by the tenth amendment because the powers are given to them, not the federal government which means they have the power which means they're above

 

[Garlic Man]

You still haven't explained why big government is unconstitutional or how the constitution is designed to put state government over federal government.

And you somehow managed to sound even more ridiculous there.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

You still haven't explained why big government is unconstitutional or how the constitution is designed to put state government over federal government.

And you somehow managed to sound even more ridiculous there.

Okay. Text of the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the states have powers that the United States does not where the Constitution does not mention.

If we define "big government" as "government that makes laws about almost everything in the country", and the "big government" makes laws about something that the Constitution does not say it can, then it is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

State government is not superior to the United States where the Constitution says the United States is supposed to govern, but it is superior to federal government where the Constitution does not specify.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

You still haven't explained why big government is unconstitutional or how the constitution is designed to put state government over federal government.

And you somehow managed to sound even more ridiculous there.

Okay. Text of the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the states have powers that the United States does not where the Constitution does not mention.

If we define "big government" as "government that makes laws about almost everything in the country", and the "big government" makes laws about something that the Constitution does not say it can, then it is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

State government is not superior to the United States where the Constitution says the United States is supposed to govern, but it is superior to federal government where the Constitution does not specify.

You forget about implied powers and (I believe) the necessary and proper clause

 

[Stargatedalek]

I wouldn't have ever posted here again but I found this pic so funny and it has to do with the election :P

BTW I know next to nothing about politics...