Re: US Presidential Election 2012

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:12 pm

This in my view is one of the problems with a written constitution.
You either have to stick by it or constantly argue over how to amend it.
Im glad we dont have one.

by Eldorion Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:17 pm

I'm not sure what your First Amendment is. Sure, it's annoying when obnoxious people act like it has no limitations, but I think it works pretty well overall.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:36 pm

We dont have a first amendment- we dont have any.
In fact technically we dont have a legal right to free speech either.

by Eldorion Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:38 pm

I know that, but I'm not sure what your issue with the American system is -- in this instance. I'm not saying it's better than the British system but I think it works pretty well.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:43 pm

That its set in stone- until someone fights a big court battle or months of debate in government to change it.
Its the problem I have with a written consitution in general- its not very flexable or adaptable to time or circumstances it seems to me.

by Eldorion Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:44 pm

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree but we've had that conversation before. Razz

by Eldorion Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:26 pm

"Legitimate rape."

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:34 pm

That's just.... words fail me for that sort of attitude and opinion. What century is it over there?

edit add- why does the interviewer just let that slide right by? If a politician said that casually in conversation to Paxman he would have been pulling them up in a second on it and pulling his disbelieving donkey face at them and demanding they explain what the hell 'legitimate rape' is.

by David H Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:55 pm

Even most hardcore conservatives are distancing themselves from this nutcase. Romney is just the biggest name.

Romney calls Akin’s rape comment ‘insulting’ and ‘inexcusable’
By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)Mitt Romney called Rep. Todd Akin's suggestion that "legitimate rape" cannot make a woman pregnant "offensive" and "inexcusable."

In an interview with National Review's Robert Costa, the presumptive Republican nominee joined a growing number of GOP officials calling on the congressman to "correct" his statement.

"Congressman's Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong," Romney said. "Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive."

On Sunday, Akin, who is challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri's Senate race, claimed in a Missouri television interview a woman's body can block unwanted pregnancy and therefore rape victims should not have access to legal abortions.

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down," Akin told KTVI-TV in St. Louis.

The Romney campaign distanced itself from Akin's comments, insisting the GOP nominee did not share the congressman's view. But amid growing pressure on Akin to retract his comments and efforts by Democrats to tie him to the Romney campaign, the presumptive GOP nominee issued a firmer rebuke on Monday.

"I have an entirely different view," Romney told National Review. "What he said is entirely without merit, and he should correct it."

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:06 pm

I have an entirely different view," Romney told National Review.

Would he care to enlighten us I wonder on what that view is.

by halfwise Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:22 pm

"Legitimate Rape"

• Variable Credit Card Interest Rates
• Parking Fines
• Cost of Bottled Water
• Reality TV

The list goes on and on. Women should defend themselves.

by Eldorion Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:12 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have an entirely different view," Romney told National Review.

Would he care to enlighten us I wonder on what that view is.

I'm not sure about Romney, but VP candidate Paul Ryan was one of the sponsors (along with Mr. Akin from the current story) to introduce a House bill trying to distinguish between "forcible rape" and, presumably, "non-forcible" rape in terms of abortion law.

How Todd Akin and Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape - ThinkProgress

Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

Interestingly, Mr. Akin has raised this point again and is claiming that that's what he "really" meant to say.

Akin: When I Was Talking About "Legitimate" Rape, I Meant "Forcible" Rape - Slate

Slate also raises the point that Akin is not alone in this belief. Click here.

Disgusting.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: That's just.... words fail me for that sort of attitude and opinion. What century is it over there?

edit add- why does the interviewer just let that slide right by? If a politician said that casually in conversation to Paxman he would have been pulling them up in a second on it and pulling his disbelieving donkey face at them and demanding they explain what the hell 'legitimate rape' is.

Most American interviewers are consciously delicate and deferential in their interviews, at least with people in positions of power. Someone with a spine like Paxman wouldn't last a week over here because he'd offend too many of the people who are in charge of the media.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:27 pm

Whatever happened to journalists holding politicians to account. Wheres Americas famous stick it to the man attitude?

But thats besides the point Ive had an ipithiny rendeer

(that how its spelt?) or too much buckie drunken

- but either way I know why America has so many nutty problems like this and the white supremacy thing.
I was wondering why we dont have the same sort of nutty thinking here- and the answer is of course we have exactly the same sort of nutty thinking here- the difference is purely one of scale.
Where our nutters are a fringe movement lucky to number over a thousand members- your nutters are in their hundreds of thousands simply because there are so many of you.
I mean theres only 5 million people in Scotland. Is there even a state in America that small?
But we probably have about the same percentage of nutty thinkiers though.

The solution therefore is to revert back to States. That way your nutters become a smaller fringe and get less attention, less chance of power and less chance of new recruits. Nod

by Eldorion Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:33 pm

Actually, the idea of splitting back into individual States is quite popular with some of the "nutters", Petty, though doubtless for different reasons than you have.

That still leaves you with some awfully big states though. California (by far the largest) has 37 million people. It would be the 34th largest country in the world if it were independent, or about as large as Poland and larger than Canada or Australia. Even little old Maryland, 19th in the U.S., is larger than Scotland or Norway.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:34 pm

Then you need to downsize. Counties?

by Eldorion Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:28 am

You could try that, although the City and County of Baltimore where I live still has more residents than Estonia. Los Angeles County is bigger than Sweden. Very Happy

That's not representative of all cities or counties in America, though.

by David H Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:12 am

On the other end of the spectrum, my county has about twice the area and twice the population of Skye. The largest town, 25 miles from here, is about the size of Portree.

And I think you're exactly right about the nutters. We know all of ours by name.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:37 pm

Hot on the heels of Representative Akin's remarks, a fresh reminder from the GOP of just how not fringe Akin really is. Just as it does every four years, the GOP's official platform for the 2012 election is set to include a plank that supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion without regard for victims of rape or incest. The rest of the party will stumble over themselves to backpedal when someone like Akin says something extra-offensive, but the majority of party power-brokers are on board with the no-exceptions anti-abortion way of thinking.

CNN

Tampa, Florida (CNN) - The Republican Party is once again set to enshrine into its official platform support for "a human life amendment" to the Constitution that would outlaw abortion without making explicit exemptions for rape or incest, according to draft language of the platform obtained exclusively by CNN late Monday.

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

The party will reaffirm its opposition to federally-funded embryonic stem cell research and demand that the government "not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage."

Republicans have also inserted a "salute" to states pushing "informed consent" laws - an apparent reference to ultrasound bills that have moved through some state legislatures - "mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation."

The document, crafted Monday in a subcommittee meeting of the Republican Party's official platform committee in Tampa, is being closely guarded by party officials but was provided to CNN by a Republican source here.

The source cautioned that the statement of principle is still in draft form and must be approved by the full platform committee on Tuesday and by delegates to the Republican National Convention next week.

The GOP's abortion plank faces scrutiny every four years, and this year's document contains language similar to the platforms that were adopted by the party at their conventions in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

But the abortion issue has been thrust into the center of the presidential campaign as this year's convention approaches, thanks to comments from Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, a U.S. Senate candidate, about abortion and "legitimate rape."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan sharply condemned Akin's remarks and pledged that under a Romney administration, abortion would be allowed in the case of rape.

An exemption for rape, though, is not included in the platform set to be adopted by the party Romney will officially lead when he accepts the Republican nomination next week.

And Ryan, his vice presidential pick, has opposed exceptions for rape and voted alongside Akin in the House, though Ryan now says he defers to Romney's position on the matter.

Debate over the abortion plank flared four years ago when John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee at the time, said he wanted to add language to the platform to recognize exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

That prompted angry finger-wagging from top social conservatives.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, chided McCain and said it would be "political suicide" for him to add language about exceptions for rape or incest in the abortion platform.

by halfwise Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:10 pm

Up until he selected Sarah Palin as a running mate, I liked McCain for his reasonable approach to being conservative. I hope it will never become political suicide for a liberal to adopt moderate ideas.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:36 pm

The whole left/right thing is silly. If it looks like the best policy to achieve the aims who cares if its right or left of centre?- will it work? should be the main question.

by halfwise Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:45 pm

In the unfortunate 2 party system the US is mired in, it's not what will work that matters, it's what will get votes from the entrenched positions. I personally wish there was a way to have political parties form around individual candidates and die with them, but organizations do better if they have long lives. Then ideology has to be built in to give their existence meaning, and the country gets screwed as a result. Damn fool system, but I don't know how to fix it except to ban all political contributions and in fact all but state-sponsored fairly divvied up advertising so that everyone has a level field. I don't know if this can coexist with a free democracy.

by David H Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:49 pm

Many people seem to view it as a sporting event with only two teams in the league. It would be a lot more interesting with more teams.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:50 pm

Is your voting for elections first past the post, proportional representation, or something else?

by David H Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:03 pm

Something else for sure!

The game is for one party to try to control the presidency, the house of representatives and the senate all at the same time for the win. The rules for the last two vary from state to state, and the presidency has the whole electoral college system built in as a buffer against rash decisions by the unwashed masses.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:10 pm

Thats as clear as mud David!

Ok let me ask a less broad question- when a general election comes around and you go to the pooling booth- how many votes do you get and for what?
And how are the votes counted?