US Presidential Election 2012

I always saw Cheney as the evil behind the throne.
But Id rather have had him become President than Palin- I'd rather be annihilated by deliberate planning than sheer incompetence!

I see Romney is making money on the campaign trail as the first candidate ever to have a fund raiser on foreign soil whilst on the overseas stage of the campaign trail- I really dont understand the US sytsem at times.
In the Uk donators to a party have to be in the UK and citizens and their names on record. Otherwise you are inviting foreign money and big business to influence your politics.

Also I note, to rousing Jewih cheers, he declared Jerusalem the capitol of Israel. So he would tear up the peace plan then and the 2-state option would he? And what? Just give all the land that hasnt already been stolen from the Palestinians to Israel?

I fail to see how giving a people without a home a home to live in, by making another people homeless, makes any sense whatsoever.

His comments are decisive, inflammatory in the region and long after he has waltzed back to the US his pockets bulging with Jewish cash people will be dying because of them.

Curiously, Romney isn't primarily pandering to the Jewish base. They tend to be extremely loyal Democrats and hard to sway on a single issue. In this case his target audience is Extreme Evangelical Christians who read prophesy in Revelations to say that the uniting of Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ. This may help him build cred with his core Republican base, but it's unlikely to impress most of the Independent voters he'll need for the win. That's my 2 cents anyway.

I don't find Romney decisive as much as devisive, Petty!

A Mormon supports the Jews so as to collect funds from them, while the Evangelical Christians jump on board, so the Bad People (including, I assume, the Jews) can meet their Judgment Day sooner rather than later. Go Bless America!

It's even weirder than that, Orwell.

Ultra-conservative Zionist Israelis are actually courting these Evangelical Christians who hope to reunite biblical Israel for their own nefarious scriptural purposes. There have been hundreds of millions of Evangelical dollars invested in West Bank settlements for this very reason, despite international law.

The Zionists win either way because even if the Evangelicals are correct, when the Rapture comes the Evangelicals will be taken up and the Israelis will still own the land!

CBS news
July 29, 2012 2:12 PM
"Face the Nation" transcripts, July 29, 2012: Mitt Romney, Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Rodney Erickson
comments

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, Governor, one of your aides said this morning that you would respect Israel's decision to take military action against Iran on its own. Does that mean you're giving the green light to Israel to bomb Iran?


MITT ROMNEY: Let me-- I'll use my own words, and-- and that is I respect the right of Israel to defend itself, and-- and we stand with-- with Israel. We're a-- a nation-- two nations that come together in-- in peace and that want to see Iran being dissuaded from its nuclear folly, so let me use my own words in that regard.


JAN CRAWFORD: But what does that mean to you, then, that you respect their decision? I mean can you explain that a little more?


MITT ROMNEY: Well, I think-- because I'm on foreign soil, I don't want to be creating new foreign policy for-- for my country or in any way to distance myself in the foreign policy of-- of our nation, butwe respect the right of a nation to defend itself.


JAN CRAWFORD: But would you or would you not then support Israel's bombing of Iran?


MITT ROMNEY: Well, again, that would be a-- a statement which would be a-- of a different nature than what our nation has already expressed with regards to Iran. What we have said and-- and-- and with which I concur is that we should use every diplomatic and political vehicle that's available to us to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear capability state. Those actions should be executed with-- with the-- the greatest speed that we can-- that we can muster. If all those options fail and they've not all been executed, they've not all failed entirely at this stage, if all those option fail-- options fail, then we do have other options and we don't take those other options off the table. But that's as far as I'm-- I'm willing to go in-- in terms of discussing this matter while on foreign soil.


JAN CRAWFORD: Well, do you think the time for those diplomatic solutions is-- is running out or drawing to a close?


MITT ROMNEY: Well, there's no question, but when I spoke-- spoke at the Herzliya Conference five years ago and laid out the seven steps that I thought were necessary to dissuade Iran from their nuclear folly, that-- since that time not all of those steps have been put in place. And-- and we're five years closer. We're five years closer to a nuclear Iran. They have not--


JAN CRAWFORD (overlapping): Why is that?


MITT ROMNEY: --they have not-- they have not slowed their-- their process, all indications are they continue to-- to amass enriched material that ultimately would allow them to-- to have a-- a nuclear bomb, that is-- that is something which is dangerous to the world. It's a national security threat to America. And it-- it threatens the very existence of Israel.


JAN CRAWFORD: So you think that-- I mean, it's-- so, Iran is a much more dangerous threat now than it was four or five years ago? Why is that?


MITT ROMNEY: Well, Iran has-- has put in more centrifuges. It has now been able to enrich more uranium. It has more, therefore, capacity to build at-- at some point a-- a nuclear weapon. It's not there at this stage. They have further enrichment required, but they've had five years of enriching, and five years of construction--


JAN CRAWFORD (overlapping): And is that a--


MITT ROMNEY: --and five-- and five years with which to work on if they-- if they choose and if they have chosen, either missile capacity or bomb-making capacity, in addition to the enriched material. So, they're five years closer than they were when I spoke at Herzliya five years ago.


JAN CRAWFORD: And do you think that reflects a failure of the world's leaders who address some of these problems?


MITT ROMNEY: I-- I-- I would have hoped that the-- the posture I described in Herzliya five years ago would have been more fully implemented over the-- the previous five years and-- and think that-- had that been the case, we would-- we would not be as-- as close to nuclearization as we are today.

oh shit oh shit oh shit!!

If Romney were to actuallly win th eelection and carry out some of what he seems to think should happen in that region its going to be WW3.

My favourite thing (ie craziest thing) I have heard him say so far is regards Egypt- where he is worried a democratic process has produced an Islamist government- and he says they should be made to stick to treaties and agreements made under the previous admin.

So in other words- he wants the democractically elected new governement to be made to hold to the plans of the dictarorship it removed. Thats American democracy for you!

This is not new for Romney and certainly not new for the Republican Party. McCain and Palin, among others, were saying the same sort of thing in 2008. In the recent primaries the candidates were falling over each other to outdo the others in how eagerly they could defend Israel and condemn Iran.



Aside from the obvious topic of Iran, my favorite part is where he refers to the United Nations as "this country" because it's headquarters (which enjoy extraterritoriality) are located in New York City. That's right, world leaders. You can only address the community of sovereign nations on AMERICA's terms.

Its at times like these- even with the appalling government in the UK we currently have, that it starts to look not so bad after all.

You don't know how good you have it.

I don't think that Romney has a very good chance of winning the election, but that might be wishful thinking. In any event, any Republican candidate who gets elected would have to moderate their behavior because there are limits on the President's authority, but it's definitely still worrying. Neither Bush nor Obama was/is this gung-ho about foreign policy (Obama is much better at masking it with rhetoric though). I really hope that they're just saying these things to pander to their base like McCain (probably) was, but that's only somewhat better.

Eldo is right Petty, you really have it good in the UK. Its a haven of probity and common sense compared to most places.

I watched an interview earlier on Fox that was actually interesting and informative. But also completely horrifying to me at the same time.

I cant sadly remember the name of the judge interviewed- an unpleasant fellow if ever I heard one-but it was an apprently rare interview with a Supreme Court Judge (I think thats the right lot- the judges who decide if a law is constituentional).
He was explaining the different ways in which they look at the matter of constitutionality. And one of the was called 'origilinalism'- this he said meant they looked at the law in light of what the people who wrote the law were thinking not what the people today were thinking. People who lived in a different century.
The example of this he gave was the death penalty, which when the law was written was by hanging, things like the electric chair did not exist when the law was made, and on thses grounds the death penalty has been contested because another part of the consitituition forbids 'cruel and unusual punishment' and opponents of thelaw say they are and the founding fathers couldn't have known about these means at the time- the Judge said however that this did not apply because originally the law was hanging some one was ok- thats how it was done- and the electric chair and lethal injection replaced it as they were less cruel than hanging. So neither could be 'cruel or unusual'. And as originally they were clear, people should be put to death for certain crimes, the death penalty is constituitional.

Now this whole way of thinking seems bonkers to me.
In the UK there has been a growing voice for a written constituition. I think its a bad idea.
The advantage to our system is its flexability. If something needs changing it can be without a court telling the elected politicians it cant do it.

It seems to me even if there was to be a groundswelling of support for guns to be banned the court could still shoot it down- against the wishes of the people in a democractic country- and all because of something written long ago by people who couldnot envision the current world.
I mean when they wrote in the right to bear arms- how many of them do you think, had they known, would still have included it had they known of weapons that could fire 100 rounds a second? Or blow an entire building up?

On an aside thought to all this it struck me how closely it paralled the situation in the Holy Land in Jesus' Day.
People had the Law- like dont work on the sabbath- but needed to go to the legal experts (Pharisees, Saducees and Priests in their case) to be told what it actually meant in practice.
I dont see much difference here. Replace Law with Constitution and Priests with Supreme COurt and its the same thing.

I find it astonising the worlds so called leading democracy operates in this way.

You follow American politics, right? I'm a little surprised that you seem not to have known about this before now. If it makes you feel better, there are a number of advocates for a "Living Constitution" and the Supreme Court has proven willing to flat-out ignore the Constitution from time to time. Still, near-worship of the Founding Fathers (typically capitalized like that) and the Constitution is a normal part of American politics. It bothers me as well but I suppose I'm more used to it. *shrug*

I had always assumed in the past Eldo that where there was a clear public will the Consituition would be essentially overwritten- but this guy semed to be saying that it was fine to interprit it solely on the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Its that idea which I didnt realise existed and which I find frankly insane.

That does happen sometimes, though I don't think it's the public's will that matters as much in those circumstances. But otherwise ... I don't know what to say. The Constitution is generally considered to be inviolate unless it's amended. That's a widespread attitude. I don't think I'd call it insane but it's definitely unhelpful at times.

Eldorion wrote:You follow American politics, right? I'm a little surprised that you seem not to have known about this before now. If it makes you feel better, there are a number of advocates for a "Living Constitution" and the Supreme Court has proven willing to flat-out ignore the Constitution from time to time. Still, near-worship of the Founding Fathers (typically capitalized like that) and the Constitution is a normal part of American politics. It bothers me as well but I suppose I'm more used to it. *shrug*

Eldo, why are you on here, have you had any real sleep yet? Sleep deprivation is a terrible thing and it can take a long time to recover. I am worried for you.
And, you and your brother looked amazing. The costumes , perfect, you both looked wonderful. Your little knees looked a bit ruddy though. Please both of you get some sleep. please.

Thank you very much, Leelee. I slept for a solid 10 hours last night, which is much more than normal for me, and while we're both still tired, I'm sure we'll sleep well again tonight. The excitement and adrenaline kept me going through the weekend but it's been nice to get some rest now that we're back home.

I don't think I'd call it insane but it's definitely unhelpful at times.- Eldo

Our system has a serious problem- the unelected House of Lords- but putting aside the unelected nature our two systems are not really that different.

In both the people vote at a local level to elect a representive. The winners form the govenrment- they decide what to do, try to pass laws- if they succedd its sent to a revising chamber.

The broad strokes are the same.
The difference for me is that once our laws are passed thats it- unless parliamnet decides to change them by vote, the same way it was made.

In the US once the democractic process bit is over it goes to lawyers to decide if it can be law or not- its that bit I find a bit mad.
I dont see why it is in your system as its an undemocratic bit.
If a law becomes law that people feel so strongly about here they can protest or challenge itin court themselves.
If a court decides there is a problem (I cant ever actually remember this happeing) it can be sent back to be revisied.
But as lawyers are involved in drafting legilsaltion this doesnt come up that often.

I dont get why the legal questions arent ansewered, as is usual here, in the drafting of the legislation. Why do it afterwards?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont get why the legal questions arent ansewered, as is usual here, in the drafting of the legislation. Why do it afterwards?

You trust legislators?

The courts are the reason that American schools were desegregated when they were. They're the reason that the last laws against inter-racial marriage and gay sex were overturned. They're also the reason for same-sex marriage being legal in many states although not all; sometimes it's been voters or legislators who have taken that step. The same thing happened with older civil rights issues too; some states were ahead of the curve. But to bring about change on a national scale -- and especially in the South -- it took the intervention of the courts.

Obviously legal and constitutional issues are raised in the process of passing laws but that doesn't always stop legislators. Democracy's track record is far from perfect and that is the reason why the Constitution does not establish a democracy. It establishes a republic, which is a crucial distinction that is not always recognized. The will of the people is not paramount in the U.S. because when they are allowed to, a majority of the people will often vote to oppress others, especially minorities. That's not a problem that is exclusive to America.

The principal of judicial review is a very important one and I don't trust legislators with the power to make laws without oversight. There's not much of a basis to challenge laws without something that is set in stone more so than other laws. You point out yourself that you can't remember a court ever actually challenging a law. I don't think that blind adoration of the Constitution is healthy, but I'm certainly not opposed to it in principle. I just think that America as a country needs to be more open to re-interpreting (and perhaps outright changing) it to reflect new and different circumstances.

The courts are the reason that American schools were desegregated when they were. They're the reason that the last laws against inter-racial marriage and gay sex were overturned. They're also the reason for same-sex marriage being legal in many states - Eldo

But surely these same courts must have been the ones who allowed it in the first place and maintained it for so long?

In regards challenging in law I didnt mean to say that laws here arent challenged, its just rare it ever needs go so far as court. The court route is possible, the European Court of Human Rights being the highest authoruty a subject can take something- which is the highest court in Europe.
Its just it almost never gets that far. Usually if there is clear hostitlity or something isnt working its changed, altered or dropped.
Sometimes though, as in the case with Thatcher and the miners, in which there were pitched battles between protesters and police on a scale of numbers larger than many historical battles in the UK, the will of those people did not prevail. The governments did.
The way we alter it is peaceful protest or vote them out.
Thathcher was not voted out however so she could continue to enforce her governments legislative process.
Courts didnt come into it save dealing with injury claims and criminal charge

So I am not saying either system is really better than the others, I knew ours was insane already, but I really dont like the idea of a single court deciding if a law passed by a democratic government can be law.

Democracies need to exist under the Rule of Law. It's a balancing act. A good 'balance' in my opinion.

Yes but the question is should The Law come into force once a democratic body has made a new law- or should The Law decide if it can be a new law at all?

I'm in a bit of a hurry as I type this so I'm not trying to be brief or rude. If you want me to elaborate on any of my points I'll do that later when I have more time.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But surely these same courts must have been the ones who allowed it in the first place and maintained it for so long?

Sometimes, yes. I don't have blind faith in the courts either. Overall they've been more progressive than most legislatures, though.

In regards challenging in law I didnt mean to say that laws here arent challenged, its just rare it ever needs go so far as court. The court route is possible, the European Court of Human Rights being the highest authoruty a subject can take something- which is the highest court in Europe.
Its just it almost never gets that far. Usually if there is clear hostitlity or something isnt working its changed, altered or dropped.

You seem to think that things work differently in the US. The Supreme Court hears only a tiny percentage of all the cases that are appealed to it, and those have to get through a barrage of lower courts that usually get the last word. Besides, the only way any court will ever hear a challenge to a law is if there are citizens who initiate the legal battle.

Sometimes though, as in the case with Thatcher and the miners, in which there were pitched battles between protesters and police on a scale of numbers larger than many historical battles in the UK, the will of those people did not prevail. The governments did.
The way we alter it is peaceful protest or vote them out.
Thathcher was not voted out however so she could continue to enforce her governments legislative process.
Courts didnt come into it save dealing with injury claims and criminal charge

The problem is when the government and the majority of the people are in agreement and it's a minority that gets the short end of the stick. Peaceful protest can have an effect but the courts have historically been more with the times on these issues.

So I am not saying either system is really better than the others, I knew ours was insane already, but I really dont like the idea of a single court deciding if a law passed by a democratic government can be law.

Democratic governments are just as capable of passing horrible, unjust, and dangerous laws as non-democratic governments. In some cases they're more capable of doing so, since they easily act in a panic to try to assure voters that something is being done about a dangerous situation. Case in point: the Patriot Act. Not that that particular law has been overturned, but it's a useful recent-ish example. I don't think that just because a government is democratic should mean that it has the last word. That's a recipe for injustice and history bears this out.

EDIT: One last thing...

Yes but the question is should The Law come into force once a democratic body has made a new law- or should The Law decide if it can be a new law at all?

Say that the government decides to pass a law saying that it is illegal for two men to have sex. Incidentally, this exact law was in effect in Texas and 13 other states as recently as 2003. Would you really be okay with a law like this going into effect without any recourse except petitioning the same legislature which just passed it to change their minds?

Democracy is an ongoing process of (necessary!*) change - it's not perfection. Such is the Law as well.


*Not change for the sake of change, mind!

Say that the government decides to pass a law saying that it is illegal for two men to have sex. Incidentally, this exact law was in effect in Texas and 13 other states as recently as 2003.- Eldo

It was illegal in the UK until the late 60's so its a comparable thing.
In the US the Supreme Court changed that.
But not in the Uk obviously, yet we too, a lot sooner than the US and reacting to the changing mood much faster, got rid of the law making it a crime. A law that had stood, basically since Christianity became the state religion, a very long time.
What alowed the UK the ability to do so about a decade behind the times rather than half a century behind was the lack of the Supreme Court.
It was a law which could not survive the onslaught of changing mood that was the 1960's. So it changed. Its a more flexable system.
And as far as I am aware no one challenged the law in court. Its not really, very British.
You might not like something but if the other side won the vote, got more numbers, then fair play to them, abide by the rules of the game. Thats sporting.
If its something you find beyond the pale you protest about it, or write a stern email to the BBC