GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

[deep]

it's over-rated
and certainly outdated

 

[Caleb8844]

I'm assuming you think amendments are anti-patriotic?

I'm assuming you can post an amendment that says the government can force the states to comply with regulations without giving them the funds to do so?

 

[PhilsFan]

It's the phrasing of your original question that I take issue with, that having different interpretations than you means one must dislike the Constitution.

 

[Caleb8844]

Oh, I gotcha. Yeah, reading that over again it sounds a bit too harsh. Sorry about that Steved

 

[anitram]

Nowhere in the constitution is the power to pass environmental protection laws that the states are forced to comply with delegated to the government. So clearly, the power to pass environmental protection laws is a power reserved to the states. Your welcome.

You seem to believe that unless a right is specifically enumerated, it is not part of the Constitution. Is it your opinion that the founding fathers, at the time when the Constitution was written, contemplated "environmental protection laws"?

 

[BVS]

The Founding Fathers were so brilliant that they could forsee the future; they knew of the internet, they knew about climate change, and they knew about Lady Gaga. This was all part of their plan.

 

[canedge]

insert photo of founding fathers with exotic costumes here.

 

[Caleb8844]

The Founding Fathers were so brilliant that they could forsee the future; they knew of the internet, they knew about climate change, and they knew about Lady Gaga. This was all part of their plan.

Of course they knew about Lady Gaga. They even banned listening to her in one of the amendments. Does no "cruel and unusual punishment" meant anything to people nowadays?!

On a serious note, though, would you say you believe in a living constitution?

 

[BVS]

On a serious note, though, would you say you believe in a living constitution?

I believe the brilliance of the Forefathers was that they knew they didn't know everything. This is something often lost on conservatives. And because they didn't know everything they specifically designed the document to be able to evolve with the country. Can you imagine if they were as arrogant as today's politicians and believed they knew all the absolutes? Scary right? This country would be stuck in the dark ages.

 

[deep]

insert photo of founding fathers with exotic costumes here.

if we had today's technology back then
they would be on TMZ for frequenting prostitutes (some of them)

but American Exceptional-ism leads me to believe they were only doing Godly Inspired Activities

 

[Tiger Edge]

Not to mention they'd be okay with Zwarte Piet.

 

[canedge]

Of course they knew about Lady Gaga. They even banned listening to her in one of the amendments. Does no "cruel and unusual punishment" meant anything to people nowadays?!

On a serious note, though, would you say you believe in a living constitution?

They were probably regretting the career choice they made as she makes much more than them.

 

[Steved1998]

Come on man, you're an intelligent guy. Resorting to swearing and insults makes it seem otherwise.

I asked where it says that the government can burden the states with regulations the states can't afford, and not give them the federal funds to put those regulations into action. You explained why the government has to protect the environment.

I asked what you think will happen when the downtrend in the dollar continues, to the point where the government prints so much backless money, that the dollar is worth next to nothing. You explained what would happen if we went to a gold standard.

I'd say that's not quite answering my questions.

You said environmental regulations are unconstitutional according to the 10th amendment, but according to the preamble, they're perfectly constitutional. States can't be trusted with this on their own. By the 1970s this was obvious. As for not being able to afford these regulations, raise taxes or fine the shit out of businesses that violate these regulations. And before you attack me on raising taxes, take into account that taxes right now are the lowest they've been in decades.

I answered both questions. You asked me how global trade will come to a standstill. I answered. As for printing money willy nilly, the other alternative would be to back paper money with gold. Bad stuff will happen if we do that, as I stated earlier. Assuming no new regulations are passed and we leave everything as is trade will continue as it has. If the dollar keeps dropping, the world will find another reserve currency and go on as it always has. The financial system needs to be overhauled, but going back to the gold standard is not the way to do it. I didn't think I needed to repeat myself.

 

[Steved1998]

Oh, I gotcha. Yeah, reading that over again it sounds a bit too harsh. Sorry about that Steved

Don't apologize I didn't take offense

 

[PhilsFan]

I also find the idea that states know so much better absolutely fascinating. What makes a state so much holier-than-thou than the federal government?

Maybe it's my cynicism from living in a state with arguably the most corrupt government in the entire country, but I don't exactly think "states know best" is a great solution for everything.

 

[2861U2]

I also find the idea that states know so much better absolutely fascinating. What makes a state so much holier-than-thou than the federal government?

That has nothing to do with it. It is a lot easier to implement or change things at the state level than the federal. Or if you don't like what your state has done, then move to another.

Maybe it's my cynicism from living in a state with arguably the most corrupt government in the entire country

Greetings from Illinois.

 

[yolland]

Technically environmental regulation, whether state or federal, is based on the principle that natural resources (historically, especially but not exclusively navigable waters) constitute a public trust which the state is obligated to protect on the public's behalf. That's a fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence going all the way back to Roman law, though prior to the 19th century more often applied to fishing rights and the like than "environmental law" as we now think of it, for obvious reasons. Like eminent domain (which the Constitution explicitly limits despite not having explicitly granted it), it's treated as a taken-for-granted aspect of sovereignty. Underfunded mandates are a separate issue altogether although not a constitutional one.

 

[Canadiens1131]

This is an apt representation of the GOP primary so far (stolen from reddit.com)

 

[2861U2]

That's actually kind of funny.

 

[deep]

at this point in time

I will say momentum is quietly shifting (back) to Romney
and more likely he will get the nom before the late primaries

 

[INDY500]

He ain't perfect but here's Newt at his best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz_UHOeouTM

 

[yolland]

The Atlantic, Dec. 17

Appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Friday night, Ron Paul was asked to run down the list of his fellow Republican presidential candidates to give his impressions. It was pretty tame until he got to Michele Bachmann. "She hates Muslims," Paul said, giving Leno the sort of look one uses when describing a bigoted great uncle who's set in his ways. "She wants to go get 'em." Paul also tagged former senator Rick Santorum with the same label. When Leno suggested all Santorum wants to do is "talk about gay people," Paul added, "and Muslims."

...Meanwhile, the guy who is accusing Bachmann of hating Muslims has had his own run-ins with hateful speech. Recall the 2008 furor over James Kirchik's article for The New Republic about the newsletters published under Ron Paul's name over twenty years. They, among other delights, compared black people to "animals," called Martin Luther King Jr. a pedophile, and warned of imminent race war. Paul's campaign rebutted the criticism in 2008 by saying that the offensive material in those newsletters, which dated to the 1980s, were not written by Paul, and that he didn't see them before they were published; Kirchik, who quickly became a target of scorn for Paul's supporters, said the campaign had changed its story about Paul's authorship of some of those memos.

 

[trojanchick99]

Gingrich would defy the Supreme Court rulings he opposed. Also, he wants to abolish courts who make decisions he doesn't agree with either. Then he invoked Jefferson and Lincoln. Ugh.

Newt Gingrich says he'd defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed - latimes.com

 

[BVS]

Will the Republican candidate that isn't a complete hypocrite please stand up?

 

[trojanchick99]

Will the Republican Presidential candidate that isn't a complete hypocrite please stand up?

Fixed it.

They are all hypocrites, but this current crop of Republicans take it to an entirely new level. Then you add some crazy and well, there needs to be a reality show.

 

[BVS]

Fixed it.

They are all hypocrites, but this current crop of Republicans take it to an entirely new level. Then you add some crazy and well, there needs to be a reality show.

I agree, almost every single politician you can find some hypocrisy in their career, but this batch of Republicans seem to be defined by it. Especially on the Tea Party side, it seems to be part of their platform.

 

[Irvine511]

wow. that was quick. the Republican establishment can and will and did tear Gingrich to pieces, which isn't a difficult thing to do:

Paul leads in Iowa

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling

 

[2861U2]

And according to the RCP average, Newt's lost 10 points in a week in Iowa.

If Romney is simply destined not to win Iowa, I'm all for Paul winning. Have Romney come in 2nd back a few points, and Gingrich a bit further down from that, which is what some of the latest polls show. Romney wins NH by double digits with Paul or Huntsman a distant second, and consecutive 3rd-places will finish off Newt.

 

[Irvine511]

this is good news for Romney, no doubt.

however, Ron Paul is going to play much, much better in libertarian NH than in religious nut land Iowa, but then he'd probably pull whatever support Huntsman has.

going to be interesting.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Ron Paul appears to be the spoiler that will help Romney secure the nomination.