Rick Perry

[mangxema]

I think he is a delusional moron fully intent on praying on the delusional fears by his delusional followers. I also thinks that if he wins the Republican nomination, he is the next President of the United States starting on January 20th, 2013.

Not to grammar-nazi but that is an unfortunate typo...

He's got a charming demeanor, a lot of money, and does seem like a genuinely lucky, yet disciplined politician.

He's also incredibly dangerous, and the idea of a Perry presidency is as frightening to me as a Palin or Bachman presidency, albeit for slightly different reasons. (Incompetency vs. craziness vs. sociopathy) He represents much of what is wrong with the contemporary Republican party, and is the exact opposite of what we really need. I'm also not really a fan of his continual flirtation with treasonous ideas; I can't trust him to actually enforce the Constitution, which is the barest qualification for the presidency. I really don't think there's any way I could vote for him. I'd probably vote for, and perhaps actively support, Obama if that's the choice we're given -- incredible, I know, but Perry genuinely seems that dangerous to me. I'll talk the mediocre devil I know over him.

This. I'm fairly ambivalent about politics generally, since I figure any politician is going to piss me off somewhere between one- and two-thirds of the time. But electing a crazypants candidate on the GOP side is single biggest thing that could motivate me to vote for Obama.

 

[Dreadnought]

Voting third party is a good protest.

Not something I'd do every time, but if it were Mitt VS Obama I'd hardly give a crap.

I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I agree that Mitt isn't the best candidate for the job at the moment; at the same time, I feel it's much more meaningful if one would vote between the major candidates.

I may be drawing this from my distaste of Perotism.

 

[Ajidica]

The problem is, the Supreme Court can't grab a magic wand and change what the Constitution says...

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, because of, you know, its Constitutional role and established precendent. If you were to disregard the precedent set in Marbury v. Madison, then you would be disregarded the basis and validity of our entire judiciary.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Agreed. While I do have doubts about Romney, I'd take him over Obama any day of the week. Voting for a third party candidate who has little to no chance of winning is basically throwing away an important vote. My favorite point of view is the 'voting against' view. "I'm not voting for Romney, I'm voting against Obama." Another view is the hurricane view: Which hurricane would you rather strike your home: a category five, or a category three. I'll take the three, which means I'll take Romney.

I think the "Hurricane View" makes Romney look farther from Obama than he really is. In actuality, there's barely a difference.

I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I agree that Mitt isn't the best candidate for the job at the moment; at the same time, I feel it's much more meaningful if one would vote between the major candidates.

I may be drawing this from my distaste of Perotism.

I see what your saying, and if the vote was between "Not so good, not so bad" and "Totally sucks" I'd vote for the first option.

But its not really like that with Obama and Romney. Its more like "Sucks really bad" and "Sucks a little worse."

Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann wouldn't be my favorite candidates either, but I'd take either one against Obama. Same with Gary Johnson if he somehow won, Palin, heck, probably even Bush if he was somehow running again.

The thing with Romney is, he's a total liar, much like Obama. I do get what you're saying, but I would feel morally without principle if I voted for Romney. So I wouldn't do it.

As Jim Kirk said "Always a third option."

 

[NickyJ]

I may be drawing this from my distaste of Perotism.

I know I am. Perotism gave us Clinton, which makes Perotism look bad in my opinion.

I think the "Hurricane View" makes Romney look farther from Obama than he really is. In actuality, there's barely a difference.

I disagree. I think there is a sizable difference.

 

[Samson]

Wait, to whom are you referring?

Capital Punishment has nothing to do with authoritarianism by default.

Not saying anything about the rest of the thread, but you are saying that whether or not a state has the right to kill its citizens has nothing to do with how authoritarian that state is?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not saying anything about the rest of the thread, but you are saying that whether or not a state has the right to kill its citizens has nothing to do with how authoritarian that state is?

Yes.

Those who kill people deserve to be killed themselves. There's nothing inherently authoritarian about that.

 

[Zack]

Those who kill people deserve to be killed themselves.

So people who support the death penalty deserve to be killed?

 

[duckstab]

@Duckstab- Unless you can find clearly defined Constitutional language where it says otherwise, by definition the 10th amendment does prove such a thing.

Not to belabor the point, but the phrase "clearly defined Constitutional language" betrays an interpretation of the Constitution. Which is a job for the courts, not you or me. If the Constitution were completely unambiguous we wouldn't need a judiciary. We each may have strong opinions that our personal interpretation is better/more accurate/more keeping with the framer's intent. But what is true is that neither of our interpretations has the force of law.

And under current law, secession is illegal. If you form a movement, and get, say, the Texas state legislature to pass articles of secession, and get Rick Perry to sign it, it will be completely null and void under the U.S. Constitution.

Again, you have 4 options:
* Get SCOTUS to reconsider their position on secession, by which you implicitly acknowledge that only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution
* Amend, by which you implicitly acknowledge that secession is not allowed under the Constitution as-is
* Call a Convention, ditto above
* Use violence to implement secession, ditto above

 

[Ajidica]

Yes.

Those who kill people deserve to be killed themselves. There's nothing inherently authoritarian about that.

So, I suppose you would be for executing just about the entire actively deployed US Army and National Guard? After all, they killed people.

 

[madviking]

@Duckstab- Unless you can find clearly defined Constitutional language where it says otherwise, by definition the 10th amendment does prove such a thing.

No such thing man, no such thing. It's only clearly defined if the Supreme Court has ruled on it.

And for the interest of both you and the rest of us, I beg you to quit the "secession is Constitutional" spiel since you do not have the demonstrated knowledge of the Constitution to support such a claim.

 

[Ajidica]

I wonder, does Dommy view Schenck v. US as violating the Constitution?

 

[madviking]

I wonder, does Dommy view Schenck v. US as violating the Constitution?

Schenck's dead, honey. Schenck's dead. The court overruled it with Brandenburg v. Ohio.

 

[Ajidica]

Blech. That case must have been covered the day I wasn't in AP Gov due to a field trip.

 

[emzie]

Schenck was an awful decision in the first place. Had it not been overturned, I'd still consider it unconstitutional.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Schenck was an awful decision in the first place. Had it not been overturned, I'd still consider it unconstitutional.

I agree with you. And that's also how I feel about Texas VS White.

Basically, I don't believe the courts are infallible.

 

[Ajidica]

After checking Wikipedia, it appears I got my cases mixed up. I did want to refer to Brandenburg for imminent lawless action, not Schenck for clear and present danger.

Sorry everyone for the confusion resulting from my laziness with regards to wiki checking my facts.

 

[Red Door]

They can try.

Read the 10th amendment.

Now what in the world does the 10th Amendment say about the Supreme Court in interpreting Constitutional Law that I can't find in my copy of the Constitution?

 

[Red Door]

Basically, I don't believe the courts are infallible.

Why do you not believe in the United States Constitution?

 

[madviking]

I agree with you. And that's also how I feel about Texas VS White.

Basically, I don't believe the courts are infallible.

Well, until they overturn Texas v. White you're stuck with it. But it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court nowadays would ever take up such a case.