[MrMageo]

Yes no one man has absolute power in a democracy because then it would defeat the purpose. Feba just has his head shoved up Barrack Obamas ass, and doesn't really care about anything other than that.

No matter who wins, ultimately it will be the democrats that choose what to do anyhow being in control of 1/3 branches. (2/3 if obama wins). Really that is the downfall of democratic systems. In Canada we have 4 parties all screaming foul and for something different, and nothing gets done because no one controls any legislative branches. (conservatives have a minority so can;t do anything at all without making bedfellows with other parties). This fall we are scheduled to have out fifth election since 2000, thats alot of money being wasted for nothing.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

You know, with all the "logic" I've seen in this thread, its little wonder we have people that get this worked up over thier choice of sports team or video game console.

That aside, I as well would hit it.

[Karinya]

Well, I think it's a great choice. Palin is famous and beloved around the world - who can forget the Dead Parrot sketch, the Lumberjack Song, and many other classics? Unexpected? Of course! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


...Wait, who? Governor of Alaska for *two freaking years*? (And already under investigation for abuse of official power - quick work even by Republican standards!) That was the choice of the guy who attacked his opponent for lack of experience?

If you collected all of Alaska into one city it would be 17th in the country - smaller than Columbus or Austin. California and Texas each have four cities that are *each* bigger (in population) than Alaska. Chicago (not counting the rest of Obama's home state) has over four times the population of Alaska. (Note that this is only counting people who live inside city limits. The Chicago metropolitan area has about *twelve* times the population of Alaska, but that includes suburbs outside Illinois.)

It's 3:00 in the morning and the emergency phone just went off and gave some 72-year-old guy a heart attack. Now who answers it? Oh shit.

Originally Posted by Cometgreen

How do you know she has 'no ability' to 'run' the country? There aren't really specific skills, just good judgment.

Good judgment like the judgment that leads someone who once ran against corruption to accept a position playing second fiddle to one of the Keating F#&%ing 5?

Yeah, that's some good judgment alright. In a pig's eye.

And the fact that the *current* president has no specific skills at running the country doesn't mean that there aren't any skills that would be useful if you *did* have them.

[WovenDarkness]

Originally Posted by Cometgreen

It has the potential to bring the conservative base to McCain, especially the libertarian leaning Republicans in the West. She reinforces the image of a maverick, especially since she's fought against Republican corruption, which helps the ticket act as if they're different from the Bush administration. She also helps with the down-to-earth image, which is important given the god-like image the Dems keep giving to Obama (or does he give it to himself?).

Obama can try again in 2012.

That's pretty much how I see it. It's a move to consolidate the republicans and right wing nuts(wingnuts?). This woman is a bunch of everything that he needs to try and get that done. McCain couldn't consolidate socks into a sock drawer. ...at least, that's my personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Taskmage

McCain himself has the opposite problem, he's got experience but it comes with being uncomfortably old for some people. So he picks someone with youth and energy, which comes with .. well crap, inexperience.

Somewhat amusing that the two tickets have by their VP picks essentially become mirror images of eachother.

Yeah, and they bash each others heads in while we watch, hoping to swing our little votes one way or the other. In some ways it's funny. In other ways, well...it's just irritating. The hypocrisy of it drives me outside for coffee and a smoke generally. It's like 2 children bickering in front of the parents trying to get each other in trouble. Damn, I'm beginning to hate politics.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Originally Posted by WovenDarkness

I'm beginning to hate politics.

Only just now?

[WovenDarkness]

Originally Posted by Omgwtfbbqkitten

You know, with all the "logic" I've seen in this thread, its little wonder we have people that get this worked up over thier choice of sports team or video game console.

That aside, I as well would hit it.

It has nothing to do with logic. Just testosterone. j/k.

Seriously though. Since some or all of us fail at the "logic" end of it, please, give the dog a bone here. Jump into the fray. (Show me your logic....)
______________________________

Originally Posted by Omgwtfbbqkitten

Only just now?

Yeah, that's pretty much it though. I didn't actually start to like politics until a couple of years ago. Once I saw what it was all about, I just got angry. To bad I didn't stop caring though. I could save money on prescriptions that way.

[MrMageo]

I think it is american politics that is the bad thing in politics. Personally I love canadian politics, nothing might not get done, but at least we know our vote counts.

In the states they can pretty well pick who wins before hand just based on registration (since you declare if you are a dem repub or independant) I mean look at CNN they already have obama leading by several electoral votes based solely on the registrations of voters.

In canada I can vote for who ever the hell I want without registering, so you can say wow my vote did make a difference. Hell I can even vote for myself without voiding my ballot. The 2 party system is so blah. (well we pretty well have a 2 party system NDP sucks, and Bloc Quebecois is in Quebec only which is stupid since they can never possibly win) When I first got into politics I started with study of american politics, which has been pretty well the exact same for the last 100 years or so, makes it pretty boring and stupid.

I mean someone can win the popular vote but still not be president that is pretty flawed right there, and really makes the race stupid considering states are blue or red with 3 or so swing states (michigan, florida, ohio) makes it easy to predict the winner. I imagine a week after the RNC we will probably be able to pick who is going to win based on the information that will be provided. American politics are so boring.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Originally Posted by WovenDarkness

Seriously though. Since some or all of us fail at the "logic" end of it, please, give the dog a bone here. Jump into the fray. (Show me your logic....)

My logic generally is to avoid the yellow journalism, loaded buzzwords used by each side and look at the facts and history behind the candidates. My logic is also to avoid the mainstream media on such matters, because liberal or conservative, both have proven to be inherantly biased and have thier own agenda.

Most of the people here are just regurgitating what they've heard on TV, Talk Radio or just are recycling the same bull they've said year after year.

I also know all to well that McCain and Obama are media darlings, they know how to spin the imagery in thier favor. Obama stood up there last night in a presidential-ish setting making Carter-esque speeches. McCain has done the Tonight Show, SNL, hell he sucks up to Hollywood more than some Democrats do.

But at least this time I can sigh with relief that we don't have a candidate riding daddy's coattails or trying to follow up the previous Democrat that did nothing while in office except get blowjobs from interns.

[Malacite]

My brain hurts after watching the GOP's sad attempts at making her out to be better than Obama on CNN... *ow*


They got thousands of e-mails today from angry women who feel insulted at this pick, that she's supposed to be a Hillary replacement and really that's what this all is; a stunt to get women voters. I happen to agree that it is very insulting to the intelligence of women that just because he chose a female VP all these HRC supporters are just going to flock to Mc Cain.

They wanted HRC to win because of who she is and what she stands for. What they (GOP) were saying today is Mc Cain (he himself said so in an add or something) picked her because she's the best suited to take over for him should something happen.


Umm.... bull shit? She's got less experience than Obama (1st term Gov, former mayor of a town with less than 8000 people) and well ... how do you compare that to someone like Romney? Moreover it would give Romney extra credibility to run again as President. However the two of them don't get along at all so that's likely why he wasn't chosen (even though everyone pretty much figured it would be him >_>)


To be fair, she's done a lot of good in the short time she's been in Alaska and is well liked among conservatives but I still think Mc Cain shot himself with this one. Biden's gonna eat her alive in the V.P. debates (assuming the Media doesn't first) I still think Mitten would have been the ideal choice.


Oh well, guess I'll go back to listening to the morons and their ridiculous claims about Obama... like the lack of foreign affairs experience. Um... the guy sits on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, which is chaired by his V.P.. I've yet to hear one concrete, factual argument come out of their (GOP)'s mouths on any of the major networks. They're grasping at straws and they know it, they just can't admit to anything because it will be a visible sign of weakness (particularly after that spectacular acceptance speech last night. The Man hit every last point he's been criticized on dead-on)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Originally Posted by Malacite

They wanted HRC to win because of who she is and what she stands for.

Which was pretending to be from New York and reduce the First Ammendment to nothing?

[WovenDarkness]

Originally Posted by Omgwtfbbqkitten

My logic generally is to avoid the yellow journalism, loaded buzzwords used by each side and look at the facts and history behind the candidates. My logic is also to avoid the mainstream media on such matters, because liberal or conservative, both have proven to be inherantly biased and have thier own agenda.

Personally, I think that's the wise thing to do. I think everybody ought to do that. Look at the track records and vote for the meathead they feel will do the best job. Media, mainstream or otherwise is normally biased. If it doesn't have the facts in it, it's usually either biased or speculation mixed with personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Omgwtfbbqkitten

But at least this time I can sigh with relief that we don't have a candidate riding daddy's coattails or trying to follow up the previous Democrat that did nothing while in office except get blowjobs from interns.

Ahh. Ok, cool. Fresh faces for you. That's a bonus. I wish that I could have the same. Unfortunately, there's just too much that I don't like about either candidate. It's a sad day.

[Kitalrez]

MrMageo, you're a wonderful person, but honestly: "Shut the fuck up, you know nothing about American politics."

This isn't Canada, we don't work like we've lead you to believe. You've been snow-jobbed, and it's intentional.

America has 3 branches of govt. They are equal. Not, they are equal on paper, they are literally equal. Not in the High School civics class, touchy feely equal, meaningfully equal.

Here's what I mean: You have a concept of what the Judicial branch in America does. That concept is probably only partially right, or flat out wrong. We do not interpret the laws of the land, any more than the Legislative branch actually writes laws, as you've been lead to believe. We are solely responsible for maintaining "order". We maintain order by actually creating laws, which we then enforce. Don't believe me? Look at the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC. This governs every single contract you've ever signed. Obviously, it was written by some legislature, maybe even passed by congress. Wrong. It was written over long discussions by a group known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or NCCUSL, and the American Law Institute or ALI. Who's in these organizations? Lawyers. Maybe some Judges, too. Mostly Lawyers. Not a single elected person had a hand in crafting this document. I hear a few of you saying "Great, now I can get out of my cell phone contract! This isn't a real law." Nope, nice try though. Every judiciary in the country except Louisiana has adopted all or part of this statute in their laws. (Louisiana is wierd, they have "Civil Law" instead of "Common Law". I blame France).

The court operates on a concept that is known as "Common Law". Basically, this is precedent based on past decisions of other judges interpreting some statute or the decisions of other judges. We have operated like this since almost before the English Civil War. Probably even further back. The former colonies of Britain have robust judicial systems for a reason. Every time a decision is affirmed on appeal up a level, it is strengthened into law. The highest level of affirmation a federal law can get is the United States Supreme Court, the highest level a state law can get is the Supreme Court of that state. The State Supreme Court has precedent over the US Supreme Court in all state laws which are not in violation of the US Constitution or federal laws made under that constitution. In everything else, it's the opinion of the 9 guys in wierd robes at the top.

The most powerful man in this country next year is not going to be whoever wins this election, it's John Roberts. John Roberts will be there a lot longer than either of these guys. What John Roberts decides to do is going to end up as law. Unless those other 9 justices start disagreeing with him, that's the way it is. Granted, it'll take what John Roberts does a hell of a lot longer to impact your existence than what the President or Congress decides, but his impact on your life is going to be way greater unless one of the other branches decides to flat out kill you. That's why John Robert's confirmation hearing was a BFD. It was hidden in the mess of everything else going on, but trust me, it was a BFD.

Now, the Legislative branch has a particular tricky role in Govt. It's the one that polices everyone else. Judicial appointees are for life. President is for his term. Congress can choose to remove either of these, or "impeach" them for violating what it sees as the law. That's just one of it's powers, however. Alot of people think the Legislative branch MAKES laws, it does not. It instead SUGGESTS laws. When the politician you see says "There ought to be a law..." in his campaign, then gets elected and writes one? All he's writing is "there ought to be a law about..." He isn't crafting the real document. The real document doesn't actually exist. It gets created as we go along by the Judicial branch. Lawyers interpret the statute the politician wrote, argue whether it is or isn't good law, what it actually means, and how it should be applied. A judge then writes an opinion based on these arguments and that becomes the law of the land when other judges agree or disagree with that judge. It's not just for constitutional questions, that happens for every law. Legislatures are not peopled by lawyers or people who actually know how to craft enforceable statutes, they're filled with citizens. They write documents that are flawed. These suggest a course of action, but generally don't create an enforceable document until they get tinkered with and interpreted. The other power, which is far greater than either of these is the purse. The Legislative Branch funds everyone else. It can choose who has the money to actually conduct business. If Congress wanted, no one outside of Congress would be able to turn their lights on and actually work. The head of Congress, (Right now it's Pelosi, but that's only because her party has a bigger majority in the House, if the Senate was 2/3 Democrat it'd be Harry Reid instead), could decide to not fund anyone, and Congress would pretty much control the show. To a point...

Remember, that I said every branch was equal? Yeah, here's the point. The Executive and Judicial branches can always decide to haul Congress off to jail for misconduct if they try that. Why? Because they make and enforce the law.

Here's where the Executive pops in. What it does is ENFORCE the law. They're the heavy in this thing. The President can, and Andrew Jackson did, decide to completely ignore the other two branches. During the "Trail of Tears", Andrew Jackson decided to ignore or "nullify" the opinion of Congress. They told him to stop deporting the Native Americans East of the Mississippi, he decided to order the Army otherwise. The Judicial branch agreed with Congress, and he ignored both of them. The only recourse both had was to Impeach him, and they backed down. The executive branch creates and maintains various national agencies who write statutes that the Judicial branch can choose, (and usually does), to enforce. Like the EPA, the EPA has no power to write law, but it does create an awful lot of administrative rules and statues that the Judicial Branch chooses to enforce anyway. Once they do that, it becomes law anyway. The President is thus more than a figurehead, he's THE ENFORCER. This is the guy that goes out and acts on our behalf, either internally or externally. He only does that as long as we let him, though.

To give you an example of the give and take, look at the last 8 years. Here's how the battles have shaped up and why:
1. Bush appointed the chief justice during his terms, he thus became stronger than the Judicial branch, if only fleetingly, because he could ensure that he had a chief justice, and at least one appointed justice who agreed with some of the things he was doing.
2. The Judicial branch kind of agreed with some of the things he was doing, that helped give him Carte Blanche to do a lot of the questionable things he did.
3. He appointed the Attorney General of the US. People erroneously believe this is a Judicial Branch member, instead it's an executive position. The Atty General argues for the Govt. specifically the Executive Branch, positions on the law. He picked a particularly political appointee, Alberto Gonzales, and was thus allowed to do a lot of things he might otherwise have been barred from, like waterboarding prisoners. If the appointee is agreeable to what you're doing, he'll argue your positions in court and ensure that many questionable practices become seen as legitimate.
4. Dick Cheney was head of Congress. This is actually an odd situation. It came about because the Republican Party was in power in both houses of the Congress for once, and had the Executive position too. The Vice President casts the deciding vote in the Senate, (which has 100 members exactly), in the case of a tie. Thus, unless his entire party disagreed with him, he was able to control what did and did not come up to the president for signing. (Republicans had a bare majority in the Senate at the time). This is why the VP was in the news so often. Again, it's a weird situation. Normally the VP is a figurehead, just like you were thinking the President was.

Now, when all this combines, you end up with a situation like we had with Bush. It's like if you're playing 3 sided checkers and the Executive side just got "kinged". Every star aligned, and we just made a C student the most powerful man in the world. (Coincidentally, he behaved like a C student who just was made the most powerful man in the world. Sorry, our bad.) He could do that because of his control over our rather large army, numbers of international alliances, nuclear weapons, etc. Basically, before he really started screwing international alliances up as bad as he did, the President of the US in his position can tell the Secretary General of the UN to go F himself, and he has no choice but to go do just that. NPR had one guest from a discussion on the Dominican Republic refuse to leave before a campaign discussion in 2004 because the discussion affected her nearly as much as it did actual citizens. In 2004, the President was the most powerful man in the world.

But yeah, normally it's a seen of constant struggle. You rarely see the struggle, and you almost never acknowledge it, but it's there. Take 1994 for instance, who was the most powerful man in the country for a few months? Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House. He shut the place down for months. Guy ran ragged over Clinton and the Court. He could do that. He continued doing that until the press, (or 4th Estate, the hidden branch of govt.), overturned public opinion in his favor. The Judicial Branch has been the strongest for several times in recent years. Take Roe v. Wade for example. Or Brown v. Board of Education. These were big deals. Roe v. Wade made law a particularly sneaky opinion. No, not abortion. Privacy. Warren and Brandeis, (Brandeis became a Supreme Court Justice after writing this), wrote a little opinion known as "The Right to Privacy" in the early part of the 20th century. Look it up, it's interesting. Basically, it said that we have these 10 amendments to the US Constitution, in order for those 10 to make sense, (not quartering soldiers in homes, unreasonable searches, free press, etc), it can be assumed that there is an 11th right protected here. That right would be Privacy. There must exist some sphere where the Govt has no business being. This created a public and a private sphere. By citing this in his opinion in Roe, Justice Blackmun basically gave us a whole new amendment to the US Constitution. You're welcome. We've been fighting about what that right actually meant ever since. If Obama is elected, Brown v. Board could be challenged on the grounds that affirmative action actually worked. It could be ruled that the system is no longer neccessary, and this whole body of law could go away. As soon as you affirm it on the highest level of the land, it becomes law until that level decides to change its mind. What happens to Privacy if Roe is completely overturned? Do we need more Privacy rulings on the Supreme Court level to keep it?

You're on the outside, you don't see these internal battles. Most of the time they're such brief skirmishes that they don't even register here. The Judicial Branch likes it that way and tries to keep it there. We're appointed for life or self policed by Bar associations specifically so we don't get caught up in policital maneuverings. So long as we stay hidden, we have no reason to stray from that. The idea that there is a new core of "activist judges" silently controlling the country is bullshit, however. Activism is pretty much the job description of judge. You hear arguments for both, and you decide how the law is or should be. The press's job is to go after all of these branches when they screw up or become powerful. They keep everyone in line. Most of the time each branch supports them when they're not going after that branch. It helps maintain their own level of power. If you ever wonder who's on top in this struggle, watch who's going after the press at the time. That's the top dog now.




Back on topic, I kind of think this is a bone thrown to try and get a few independent voters who would otherwise have supported Hilary. I think it could pretty much backfire, for the same reasons others have stated. She's good, but she's also kind of a liability on a lot of fronts. It's not hard to attack her. Unless she pulls a "everyone is picking on me" like Hilary did in the debates, those broadsides are going to keep coming.

[MrMageo]

lol im a fucking political science major, Ive studied american politics into the ground.

The president is a figure head he does not do much of anything his councils do all the work for him he just signs on the dotted line, or reads a speech, shakes hands and smiles. It is the exact same with all forms of democratic government. That is all I was getting into. Its not a discussion of how the system works it is a discussion on who would be the best president... and that is... it doesn't fucking mater. Its who is the best party. Same in any democracy in the world.


On the other side of things you obviously do not know how politics work in Canada. Its virtually Identical except our figure head is the Governor General, The Queens Representitive to or parlimentary process, voted in by us of course. Just like the president she has no "real" job, other people do it for her. Want to know why we have the same style of government.... this is going to shock you.....

we are also a democratic nation, did you think otherwise? Are you one of those americans who thinks your the only country with freedom? and the right to vote? come into the 21st century 90% of the world is free and all use the same form of democracy that has been passed down to us through 10000 years of revisions.

P.S. I see all your internal struggles I read all your internal struggles. Did you know american news is the most widley broadcasted news in the world? Yes we even get in Canada, alot of it. Bush was not the most powerful man in the world. His party was the most powerful party in the world. His big three are the most powerful in the world. (state, defense, homeland security).

[Malacite]

Thanks Kit for illustrating the sheer genius of the founding fathers (and how horribly Bush has abused the system for his own ends. The asshole actually managed to change the law just enough to basically clear him and his cronies of what would have otherwise been war crimes and other serious charges the bastard) You people only have yourselves to blame for electing him twice, even if he and Cheny ought to be tried and hanged for high treason and gross misconduct/abuse of the system @_@ (What the FUCK was the point of putting Alberto in a hearing where he wasn't under oath? Yah, let's just throw all notions of perjury)

And just ignore Mageo, he doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

[Icemage]

Holy handgrenades of Antioch! Please keep the discussions civil, folks.

This friendly Moderator's message has been brought to you by the letters T, Y, and the number -1.


Icemage