plarq
Crazy forever
when was last time the third party gained significant votes? I remember 1948 with Dixiecrats splitting from Democrats, sadly Truman still won after the split.
Gary Johnson for President
- Thread starter Omega124
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992.
Berzerker
Deity
and he stood a chance of winning before he dropped out
But then almost half the electorate has terrible judgement.
Very organized thoughts from the op. I'm volunteering for the Johnson campaign in my state and will be borrowing some of these points. I do think he can win, but it's a narrow path. Not too much more narrow than Trumps at this point. If Johnson wins only a few states the election could be decided by the house. CO, WA, NM, OR are probably his best shots. AK, HI, MT, UT, NH or ME are possibilities
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I honestly can't see him winning in any state.
George Wallace won a few states in the South in 1968 while running on a pro-segregation platform
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
Libertarians are evil kthnx
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
At this point I agree. However, the big hurdle is getting him onto the podium for the debates. Once that is achieved, and if he has a great showing - which lets admit, it wouldn't take much to have a great showing between Clinton and Trump as they would be going after one another so hard - then his movement could catch real fire.
From what i'm reading he's actually making the most ground among millennials, which probably isn't surprising. I wonder if they are disillusioned Bernie supporters that just cant reconcile with a Clinton choice? Hard to tell at this point.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
It's not semantics at all. You don't expect a U.S. president to wage war in a way that is at best of questionable legality, so there is simply no way to conclude from that vote that it was in support of a unilateral war. She said at the time that she did not support such a war.
The Iraq war resolution was passed in October of 2002. That was before the passing of UNSCR 1441. They weren't voting to enforce a resolution, because no resolution existed at the time the Iraq war resolution passed in the Senate. And even if they had, it was pretty clear to all parties at the time UNSCR 1441 passed that if it was violated, parties would return to the UNSC to go over further options.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Right. It might be fair to expect now that if you vote to authorize war, that a president may simply carry out war however they damn well please, but that was most certainly not the reality in 2002.
Of course, these days we're at the point where the whole notion of Congress authorizing military action is quaint, so I can see why people might not understand how the world used to work back then.
Of course, these days we're at the point where the whole notion of Congress authorizing military action is quaint, so I can see why people might not understand how the world used to work back then.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
We knew at the time what that vote meant. And we knew at the time what contemporary conservatives are.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Of course its semantics. How many times in US history has use of force been authorized but not used?
To say you don't expect a President to use said force once approved is to be utterly ignorant of US history. I'd say an intelligent and reasonable person would have EXPECTED said force to used once approved.If you give the genie permission to get out of the bottle, it's rather disingenuous to claim you never wanted him to leave the bottle in the first place.
They were voting to enforce all future resolutions as necessary. The language of the law on the security council was thus:
Ironsided
Flower of happiness
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
Only days after 9/11 Hillary, who was the leading figure of the opposition, told the world that all nations had to choose to either “be with us, or against us”. Many think that was a quote from W Bush - but it was actually Hillary. She backed Bush to the hilt. As the opposition leader. As the one person who should have spoken out against the madness. She had no spine then and she will have none in office. Still, she’s better than this Johnson chap and Trump. Which is more a testimony to the absolute and desperate lack of leadership quality in the USA.
Given her family values (long marriage) and support of a war you agreed with, I am kind of puzzled why you are not eager to vote for Clinton, Mobby.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I lived in Arkansas during Clinton as governor. My wife's uncles used to play poker with the guy. Lots of things that never made it to the press were talked about. No thanks.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Of course its semantics. How many times in US history has use of force been authorized but not used?
If you give the genie permission to get out of the bottle, it's rather disingenuous to claim you never wanted him to leave the bottle in the first place.
But you're missing a rather large part of the picture - the Senate resolution in no way authorized or condoned a war that ignored the UNSC and went ahead and declared war against their wishes.
Why would you authorize Bush to enforce UNSC resolutions, and then expect him to gnore them and declare war without UNSC authorization? That was clearly not the intent of the resolution, and it's revisionism to claim otherwise.
It wasn't exactly a secret at the time that France and others were opposed to invading Iraq. It just doesn't logically follow that voting for the resolution meant support for an illegal war. Not when the resolution specifically talks about enforcing UNSC resolutions.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I'm not missing anything. An official declaration of war has only been done a handful of times in our nations history of all the wars/conflicts we've been in.
And fwiw, he didn't ignore the UNSC resolutions, he merely used force to enforce their violation, something the other members of the security council were loath to do for their own (selfish) reasons (under the table oil deals with Iraq).
It's not revisionist to point out that use of force was authorized...and then used (as expected). It's absolutely disingenuous to vote FOR use of force and then claim you never wanted or expected force used. She's merely trying to divert responsibility for her own role she played there. I don't buy it and neither should you.
UN Security Council 1441, the final resolution prior to war, called upon the security council to meet and discuss the matter (paragraph 12) if Iraq failed to comply with 1441. This was supposed to be the final discussion of use of force by the UN in order to disarm Iraq as had been provided for in 1441 and all previous resolutions up to that point (10 resolutions previous over the years). The USA and the UK called for the meeting, however, France made a flat declaration at that time that it would veto any use of force no matter what (France was later fined 750,000 euros for violations in the 54 billion euro 'oil for food' program with Iraq). At the next meeting of the council as called by 1441 chapter 12, use of force was not discussed due to France's position. After that, USA, Britain, Spain and Portugal then set a deadline for final Iraq compliance if that wasn't met, then invasion would be imminent.
This is where the 'legality' of the war comes into play. If members of the UN security council are loath to act due to under the table dealings with a nation in violation of UN resolution are other members bound by it? Especially if they deem their own national security may be at risk as a result? Just as an observation, prior Iraq resolution often called for individual action by member states in other areas of resolution - so claims that 1441 as written did not allow use of force after a chapter 12 meeting were held are debatable at best.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Yes, of course they are bound by it, and it's silly to argue otherwise. International law and the UN charter are quite clear on the point that the only permissible war against another member state is if they actually attack, or the action is specifically authorized by UNSC resolution. A mere risk to national security is not a valid justification under any legal precedent, and certainly not under the UN charter. You don't get to ignore those things because a permanent UNSC member with veto power is disagreeing with you, regardless of their reasons for doing so. That undermines the rule of law, and the UN, and violates our treaty.
Similar threads
