Why don't you read what I said again and get back when you can process it.
BTW, focusing on one part of the statement and trying to extrapolate it to a point of absurdity isn't the way to show your right in an argument. All it does is show that you don't have much to work with.
Oh, so it wasn't bush who did all those evil things, it was people behind the scenes pulling the strings where no one else could see. And somehow you ended up knowing all this because they couldn't hide it from you.
I need to brush up in my political conspiracy theories and everyone is out to get me 101.
Wow.. Who said anything about the country wanting a public option? Most people in the US despise the idea of the government controlling their access to health care. They see the limitations it places on seniors in their own family and the hassles they have to jump through. They see how the government screws a lot of other things that it runs too. Take social security for instance, for years it wouldn't index the actual inflation rates so the cost of living increases never kept up with real inflation. Yet you have politicians walking around saying it's doing great and seniors are living good because of it. This is also why seniors who depend on social security get so upset anytime any politician purposes any changes to social security outside of taxing more to get more revenue. Another example might be the DMV where most everyone older then 20 has a couple of horror stories running into the DMV around various states.
Anyways, It doesn't really matter that the provisions in Obamacare don't take effect until 2014. It's been passes, people can look it over, people have been talking about the provisions that will take effect and they don't like that implementation.
I can give you some of a reason why too. Take the death panels for instance. It turns out that there will be the same panels that Palin described (and continues to describe) as death panels if the Obamacare laws takes effect as written. These will be boards set up to determine if a treatment should be offered based on it's costs, and if someone should not receive the treatments in favor of someone else with a better chance of living more of a life. It's basically rationing health care to whoever these panels determine has the greater need and it's being blown off by the democrats as "it already happens by private companies". Well, no it doesn't. What happens with private insurance is that someone reaches a max life time benefit allowance and the people think that is wrong. So why would they think the government doing the same damn thing would be right? Why would the people who think this is wrong, all the sudden support it when the government does it justifying the need as "it already happens in private practice"?
But lets look at this another way. Our laws, for what it's worth, are all designed to preserve life. We are spending millions in each state over this new years holiday weekend to enforce our drunk driving laws and protect people. A car club, AAA, has announced a study that an average of 80 people a year die from alcohol related fatalities in new years day. That's an average of 1.6 people per state and we are spending millions to save these people's lives yet we are going to have panels that determine someone is not worth saving compared to someone else because of costs. Do you still wonder why people don't agree with it? It completely goes against the normal role society expects from the government.
There's a lot more but it would take way to long to present it.
If you dropped that to the top 15%, I could agree with you. However, I'm seeing it as the top 5% is in the same boat as your 1%.
If the top 5% helped everyone in the class, then everyone in the class would be closer to the top percentile of the class. What generally happens in real life is that the just smarter then the others help the others out and you settle with a combined average lower then the top 15 or 20 percent.
I don't think you understand the point that there is supposed to be a massive limitation on federal authority in general with respect to individuals. This was the entire idea and concept behind Roe V Wade in which the courts said the federal government couldn't outlaw abortions.
If the argument prevails that the feds do have this authority, then there is absolutely nothing preventing the feds from outlawing abortions. some people simply aren't thinking this through outside the "justified ends" they want.
And here is a law describing the filing fees to cover the costs of elections.
We can do this all day long but I should point out to you that your laps of reading comprehension skills doesn't not mean I was making anything up. I did not say all states, I said most of them. You finding one state to the contrary, does nothing to my statement. Also, the very same laws you pointed too describe filing fees and petitions of signatures indicating that in fact, the parties pay the government for the costs of the primary elections. Because it goes to the state and the state pumps it back out does nothing but confuses you.
I though Google used Anycast just like the rest of the large providers. Perhaps it's a routing issue where Google's servers are separated a bit geographically from certain people and the servers they are wanting to connect to?
OK, first, it wouldn't put the two parties out of commission and create any opportunity for any third party. What is would do is cause the primary election process to be closed to card carrying members. That's ok, because in most states, the parties pay for the portions of the ballots in which their candidate selections are made.
Second, the reason we have a 2 party system is because the two parties are actually a combination of most of the would otherwise be third parties. You will not find one person who thinks the entire democrat platform is a good idea outside of it's not a republican idea. The same is true for republicans. What you will find is people that agree with a lot of the small issues or a few of the big issues presented to us with the platforms. Because of this, when you end up with third parties that have a few different ideas, you will not find a majority or even a confident minority of the population in agreement with them on all of their platforms.
A contributing reason for this is familiarity. Most people like to stick with the devil they know. If most of a party's platform mirrors a stand of one of the existing party's, then the people will just stick with them. If the people are that much at odds with the large parties, then the parties move to the people, not the other way around.
What would stop this is if third parties actually did a grass roots development cycle in which they took seats on the city counsel, in the statehouse, congress, and so on, before attempting the gain the attention of the entire population in running for president. Right now, third parties are little more then protest votes and tools to get the large parties to move one direction or another. They are better then staying at home and not voting because it puts the message out that something the third party did was more attractive and they need to address it, but they don't do much more because the support simply isn't there.
The only way to get multiple parties in America is to get them in the lower forms of government first. Then they are the devil that the people know and the one or two differences makes a lot more sense. This is why the tea party was so successful. They didn't attempt to go and fight from outside in, they went inside out and infiltrated the republican party. Why, because most of what they like resembles the republican's "stated" platform that they forget to practice. But they didn't just put senators and congress people in, they put state legislatures, mayors and so on into office. They are the devils people know.
That's pretty much the way it is in most states. Except that you don't have to register in some states to get the party ballot. However, if you voted in the last primary, you will only be able to get the same ballot as last time or an independent ballot in the next primary unless you show a registration card with another party.
The primary portions pertaining to the parties are generally paid for by the parties. Some states have more open law saying that anyone asking for a party ballot would get it. It's tricks like this that will get those laws overturned really quick.
In most states, if not all of them, the parties pay for their own primaries not the public. Generally when the primaries are on the same dates by law, the state and local governments might share the cost to throw their own issues on the ballot too. But this is generally only in states that have required dates for primaries with all parties on the same day. IF that's not the case, then it's all party payment for them.
I can imagine why this might get confusing. There are some states that have a set date for primaries and they will throw things on the ballot outside the scope of a primary like school levies and so on. But this isn't always the case and generally the parties pick up the tab for their costs.
Actually, what I think happened, was that he misconstrued another constitutional ruling in order to make an unconstitutional law presentable. and yes, I'm talking about the health care bill.
What gets me is all the people claiming that his background in constitutional law from graduating with honors at Harvard laws school, being an editor of the law review, and giving lectures on constitutional law for various professors, makes him somehow smart and more qualified then the last president. Unfortunately, this ruling shows that either A: he didn't read the law before signing it- meaning his background doesn't matter because he wasn't using it, B: He simply got it wrong- which means his background isn't what it's being cracked up to be, C: he knew it was unconstitutional and didn't care- meaning again, his background doesn't mean anything, or D: as you suggested, knew about it and figured he would ignore his background and let the courts hammer it out- again, meaning his background isn't a valid input.
Of course there could be other scenarios too like the court getting it wrong. Although I haven't seen many legal scholars that aren't flaming obama supporters make that claim. And of the ones I have seen, I've seen little in the way of evidence to support the theory outside of some connection the judge had to the republicans or something. But in other places in this thread (or sprouts thereof), it delves into the virtues of his constitutional training which seems to be completely irrelevant in practice. I actually thought it was in line before this so I guess I showed up half cocked and I shouldn't have.
I don't disagree with what you said, I just find what others are saying to contrast that notion entirely with the qualifications and all. If IQ is any indicator in this, it shows a point of malice which would sort of put Obama in the "not good" camp if not the "evil" camp. But as I said, I conflated other posts in going down this road. You can ignore me if you want.
Well, I just wanted to show that Obama might not exactly be qualified on the entire constitutional scholar thing. I think it's more like an MSCA or MSCE back in 2001. Just because you had it, it didn't mean you knew what was going on.
If the majority of people could relate to the top 5% of the class, they would be in the top 5% of the class. The reason the aren't is because they think differently.
I'm not saying that academics isn't important or it shouldn't be important, I'm saying that there will be an inherent disconnect between those people and the people they represent. Rarely will you find people in the top levels of a class resembling most of the rest of the class unless your class is in the top levels altogether.
Seriously, think about this. When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate that would talk over his audience because they were too smart? It just doesn't happen because people get pissed at them.
And to your question of why would it be different? Well, you are hiring a lot of people to work under you. Or under a certain premise within the company. We are electing people to be over us. It would be like you hiring your own boss more or less. Would you want the boss that's super know it all and doesn't listen to you, or do you want the boss that can interact with you, takes your input into consideration, and can relate to what going on in your life?
n order to foster confusion and chaos.... and to make it as expensive as possible to find a single party ticket which would ultimately remove money from the presidential race.
Confusions and chaos would be minor. The real goal was to cause them to keep spending as it would detract from the important race.
Unfortunately, it caused the democrats to be engaged with the people and pushing their ideas longer which bolstered their efforts in the presidential race among the so called swing voter and the people who normally wouldn't have voted. So you can say it did backfire on them too.
I think you are seriously missing the gravity of the situation.
First, if you asked people if they thought that stopping the practice of denying medical coverage for preexisting conditions was a good thing, the majority would say yes. However, if you sat ten different people down in ten different rooms and said make me a law that does this, you might get ten or more different laws going in different directions to achieve the same goal. In this situation, you could line them in in orders of similarity and find that you don't like any of them but like the ones on the left or tight better then the ones on the other sides. And even if you didn't like any of the approaches, it still doesn't mean you don't like the idea of ending disqualifications for preexisting conditions.
It's not a hard concept to follow here. People like the idea in general, they don't like the implementation of it. This doesn't mean they are ignorant, two faces, unintelligent, or anything else outside of wanting something but not in the way it was done.
BTW, there were about 5 different health care bills out there over the last decade or so. Calling it obama care is perfectly legit as it points to his interpretations of what health care reform should have been. All it's doing is placing a name to the version.
There is a little more to it then that. Obama said that once he spoke about what was in the bill, the people would like it. He likened it to not selling it properly yet.
But once he started talking about the bill, less and less people like it. In fact, he sort of avoided talking about it a couple weeks before the elections as it was seen as damaging to his party.
So yea, while some might have hoped the public wouldn't remember, others believed Obama could sell it.
That's not what will happen. If it's found that this is going on and seen as a problem, then all that will happen is that the primaries will get closed down to only registered party members. And if course, just like today, if you register for another party, it voids your previous registration.
And yes, this is perfectly legit because the primaries are processes within the parties itself and the costs are covered by the parties itself minus any other non-party specific issues that might be on the ballot. So if it gets abused, then what will happen is the process will end up shutting some people out.
Actually, it wasn't that Hillary was seen as more beatable. It's that dragging the primary race out took money away from the real seat race. What it did was caused them to spend money they could or would have spent on running for the actual office instead of the privilege to run for the office.
And I'm not sure if the idea that this was a republican strategy is actually true. I know some talk show hosts claimed to be behind it and spoke about doing this crap, but I think the conception at the time was that a black man couldn't be president. It's more likely that it was just a rumor started by Obama camp in order to sway support and motivate the ranks.
There probably wouldn't be a democrat primary for president if Obama decided to run for reelection. It's sort of tradition for party members of all parties not to field candidate against their own incumbents in high positions. If there was a challenger, it's likely that it would be an outside challenge on another party ticket altogether.
I am. And I'm surprised to see how many revisionist or clueless idiots are out there that think he was a great president. Hell, even the democrats in his congress stiffed the guy because he was so lousy.
Carter might have been a great person outside of office, but in office, he made G.W. Bush amazingly brilliant.
If it's obviously and flagrantly abused, then all that will happen is that the primary elections for candidates will end up being closed off to only registered party voters.
In fact, they do that where I live at now. You have to vote the same primary ballot as you did the year before or go independent unless you haven't voted in a primary for one cycle in which you can choose when checking in. The only other alternative is to show a party registration card.
Of course the independent or the other party won't let you vote for another parties candidates. I don't see anything wrong with that. But if this gets abused, you can expect to see systems like this nation wide in the primaries.
How's signing an unconstitutional piece of legislation into law just to have the courts determine it was unconstitutional? Was he closing his eyes and hoping no one would notice? He's supposed to be a constitutional scholar for crying out loud.
You want our leaders to be in the top 5% of his class. But everyone else want them to be one of the people who can relate to what they are going through. It's no wonder why there appears to be such a large disconnect between politicians and the people.
Well, you bring up an interesting point. Most dems and liberal say bush is stupid, that he somehow masterminded and orchestrated ripping the election off in 2000, they he lied and go us into a war no one wanted, and all sorts of other feats that totally a completely dispel the idea that he wasn't smart.
I generally ask them what it makes them if someone as dumb as Bush was able to pull so much shit off with them watching. But hey, you broght up a point, maybe the conspiracy isn't calling a brilliant man stupid, but a smart guy acting stupid in order to throw off the people watching him. That's brilliance in the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn.. You are boring me.
Why don't you read what I said again and get back when you can process it.
BTW, focusing on one part of the statement and trying to extrapolate it to a point of absurdity isn't the way to show your right in an argument. All it does is show that you don't have much to work with.
Oh, so it wasn't bush who did all those evil things, it was people behind the scenes pulling the strings where no one else could see. And somehow you ended up knowing all this because they couldn't hide it from you.
I need to brush up in my political conspiracy theories and everyone is out to get me 101.
Wow.. Who said anything about the country wanting a public option? Most people in the US despise the idea of the government controlling their access to health care. They see the limitations it places on seniors in their own family and the hassles they have to jump through. They see how the government screws a lot of other things that it runs too. Take social security for instance, for years it wouldn't index the actual inflation rates so the cost of living increases never kept up with real inflation. Yet you have politicians walking around saying it's doing great and seniors are living good because of it. This is also why seniors who depend on social security get so upset anytime any politician purposes any changes to social security outside of taxing more to get more revenue. Another example might be the DMV where most everyone older then 20 has a couple of horror stories running into the DMV around various states.
Anyways, It doesn't really matter that the provisions in Obamacare don't take effect until 2014. It's been passes, people can look it over, people have been talking about the provisions that will take effect and they don't like that implementation.
I can give you some of a reason why too. Take the death panels for instance. It turns out that there will be the same panels that Palin described (and continues to describe) as death panels if the Obamacare laws takes effect as written. These will be boards set up to determine if a treatment should be offered based on it's costs, and if someone should not receive the treatments in favor of someone else with a better chance of living more of a life. It's basically rationing health care to whoever these panels determine has the greater need and it's being blown off by the democrats as "it already happens by private companies". Well, no it doesn't. What happens with private insurance is that someone reaches a max life time benefit allowance and the people think that is wrong. So why would they think the government doing the same damn thing would be right? Why would the people who think this is wrong, all the sudden support it when the government does it justifying the need as "it already happens in private practice"?
But lets look at this another way. Our laws, for what it's worth, are all designed to preserve life. We are spending millions in each state over this new years holiday weekend to enforce our drunk driving laws and protect people. A car club, AAA, has announced a study that an average of 80 people a year die from alcohol related fatalities in new years day. That's an average of 1.6 people per state and we are spending millions to save these people's lives yet we are going to have panels that determine someone is not worth saving compared to someone else because of costs. Do you still wonder why people don't agree with it? It completely goes against the normal role society expects from the government.
There's a lot more but it would take way to long to present it.
If you dropped that to the top 15%, I could agree with you. However, I'm seeing it as the top 5% is in the same boat as your 1%.
If the top 5% helped everyone in the class, then everyone in the class would be closer to the top percentile of the class. What generally happens in real life is that the just smarter then the others help the others out and you settle with a combined average lower then the top 15 or 20 percent.
I don't think you understand the point that there is supposed to be a massive limitation on federal authority in general with respect to individuals. This was the entire idea and concept behind Roe V Wade in which the courts said the federal government couldn't outlaw abortions.
If the argument prevails that the feds do have this authority, then there is absolutely nothing preventing the feds from outlawing abortions. some people simply aren't thinking this through outside the "justified ends" they want.
And here is a law describing the filing fees to cover the costs of elections.
We can do this all day long but I should point out to you that your laps of reading comprehension skills doesn't not mean I was making anything up. I did not say all states, I said most of them. You finding one state to the contrary, does nothing to my statement. Also, the very same laws you pointed too describe filing fees and petitions of signatures indicating that in fact, the parties pay the government for the costs of the primary elections. Because it goes to the state and the state pumps it back out does nothing but confuses you.
I though Google used Anycast just like the rest of the large providers. Perhaps it's a routing issue where Google's servers are separated a bit geographically from certain people and the servers they are wanting to connect to?
OK, first, it wouldn't put the two parties out of commission and create any opportunity for any third party. What is would do is cause the primary election process to be closed to card carrying members. That's ok, because in most states, the parties pay for the portions of the ballots in which their candidate selections are made.
Second, the reason we have a 2 party system is because the two parties are actually a combination of most of the would otherwise be third parties. You will not find one person who thinks the entire democrat platform is a good idea outside of it's not a republican idea. The same is true for republicans. What you will find is people that agree with a lot of the small issues or a few of the big issues presented to us with the platforms. Because of this, when you end up with third parties that have a few different ideas, you will not find a majority or even a confident minority of the population in agreement with them on all of their platforms.
A contributing reason for this is familiarity. Most people like to stick with the devil they know. If most of a party's platform mirrors a stand of one of the existing party's, then the people will just stick with them. If the people are that much at odds with the large parties, then the parties move to the people, not the other way around.
What would stop this is if third parties actually did a grass roots development cycle in which they took seats on the city counsel, in the statehouse, congress, and so on, before attempting the gain the attention of the entire population in running for president. Right now, third parties are little more then protest votes and tools to get the large parties to move one direction or another. They are better then staying at home and not voting because it puts the message out that something the third party did was more attractive and they need to address it, but they don't do much more because the support simply isn't there.
The only way to get multiple parties in America is to get them in the lower forms of government first. Then they are the devil that the people know and the one or two differences makes a lot more sense. This is why the tea party was so successful. They didn't attempt to go and fight from outside in, they went inside out and infiltrated the republican party. Why, because most of what they like resembles the republican's "stated" platform that they forget to practice. But they didn't just put senators and congress people in, they put state legislatures, mayors and so on into office. They are the devils people know.
That's pretty much the way it is in most states. Except that you don't have to register in some states to get the party ballot. However, if you voted in the last primary, you will only be able to get the same ballot as last time or an independent ballot in the next primary unless you show a registration card with another party.
The primary portions pertaining to the parties are generally paid for by the parties. Some states have more open law saying that anyone asking for a party ballot would get it. It's tricks like this that will get those laws overturned really quick.
In most states, if not all of them, the parties pay for their own primaries not the public. Generally when the primaries are on the same dates by law, the state and local governments might share the cost to throw their own issues on the ballot too. But this is generally only in states that have required dates for primaries with all parties on the same day. IF that's not the case, then it's all party payment for them.
I can imagine why this might get confusing. There are some states that have a set date for primaries and they will throw things on the ballot outside the scope of a primary like school levies and so on. But this isn't always the case and generally the parties pick up the tab for their costs.
Actually, what I think happened, was that he misconstrued another constitutional ruling in order to make an unconstitutional law presentable. and yes, I'm talking about the health care bill.
What gets me is all the people claiming that his background in constitutional law from graduating with honors at Harvard laws school, being an editor of the law review, and giving lectures on constitutional law for various professors, makes him somehow smart and more qualified then the last president. Unfortunately, this ruling shows that either A: he didn't read the law before signing it- meaning his background doesn't matter because he wasn't using it, B: He simply got it wrong- which means his background isn't what it's being cracked up to be, C: he knew it was unconstitutional and didn't care- meaning again, his background doesn't mean anything, or D: as you suggested, knew about it and figured he would ignore his background and let the courts hammer it out- again, meaning his background isn't a valid input.
Of course there could be other scenarios too like the court getting it wrong. Although I haven't seen many legal scholars that aren't flaming obama supporters make that claim. And of the ones I have seen, I've seen little in the way of evidence to support the theory outside of some connection the judge had to the republicans or something. But in other places in this thread (or sprouts thereof), it delves into the virtues of his constitutional training which seems to be completely irrelevant in practice. I actually thought it was in line before this so I guess I showed up half cocked and I shouldn't have.
I don't disagree with what you said, I just find what others are saying to contrast that notion entirely with the qualifications and all. If IQ is any indicator in this, it shows a point of malice which would sort of put Obama in the "not good" camp if not the "evil" camp. But as I said, I conflated other posts in going down this road. You can ignore me if you want.
Well, I just wanted to show that Obama might not exactly be qualified on the entire constitutional scholar thing. I think it's more like an MSCA or MSCE back in 2001. Just because you had it, it didn't mean you knew what was going on.
If the majority of people could relate to the top 5% of the class, they would be in the top 5% of the class. The reason the aren't is because they think differently.
I'm not saying that academics isn't important or it shouldn't be important, I'm saying that there will be an inherent disconnect between those people and the people they represent. Rarely will you find people in the top levels of a class resembling most of the rest of the class unless your class is in the top levels altogether.
Seriously, think about this. When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate that would talk over his audience because they were too smart? It just doesn't happen because people get pissed at them.
And to your question of why would it be different? Well, you are hiring a lot of people to work under you. Or under a certain premise within the company. We are electing people to be over us. It would be like you hiring your own boss more or less. Would you want the boss that's super know it all and doesn't listen to you, or do you want the boss that can interact with you, takes your input into consideration, and can relate to what going on in your life?
n order to foster confusion and chaos.... and to make it as expensive as possible to find a single party ticket which would ultimately remove money from the presidential race.
Confusions and chaos would be minor. The real goal was to cause them to keep spending as it would detract from the important race.
Unfortunately, it caused the democrats to be engaged with the people and pushing their ideas longer which bolstered their efforts in the presidential race among the so called swing voter and the people who normally wouldn't have voted. So you can say it did backfire on them too.
I think you are seriously missing the gravity of the situation.
First, if you asked people if they thought that stopping the practice of denying medical coverage for preexisting conditions was a good thing, the majority would say yes. However, if you sat ten different people down in ten different rooms and said make me a law that does this, you might get ten or more different laws going in different directions to achieve the same goal. In this situation, you could line them in in orders of similarity and find that you don't like any of them but like the ones on the left or tight better then the ones on the other sides. And even if you didn't like any of the approaches, it still doesn't mean you don't like the idea of ending disqualifications for preexisting conditions.
It's not a hard concept to follow here. People like the idea in general, they don't like the implementation of it. This doesn't mean they are ignorant, two faces, unintelligent, or anything else outside of wanting something but not in the way it was done.
BTW, there were about 5 different health care bills out there over the last decade or so. Calling it obama care is perfectly legit as it points to his interpretations of what health care reform should have been. All it's doing is placing a name to the version.
There is a little more to it then that. Obama said that once he spoke about what was in the bill, the people would like it. He likened it to not selling it properly yet.
But once he started talking about the bill, less and less people like it. In fact, he sort of avoided talking about it a couple weeks before the elections as it was seen as damaging to his party.
So yea, while some might have hoped the public wouldn't remember, others believed Obama could sell it.
That's not what will happen. If it's found that this is going on and seen as a problem, then all that will happen is that the primaries will get closed down to only registered party members. And if course, just like today, if you register for another party, it voids your previous registration.
And yes, this is perfectly legit because the primaries are processes within the parties itself and the costs are covered by the parties itself minus any other non-party specific issues that might be on the ballot. So if it gets abused, then what will happen is the process will end up shutting some people out.
Actually, it wasn't that Hillary was seen as more beatable. It's that dragging the primary race out took money away from the real seat race. What it did was caused them to spend money they could or would have spent on running for the actual office instead of the privilege to run for the office.
And I'm not sure if the idea that this was a republican strategy is actually true. I know some talk show hosts claimed to be behind it and spoke about doing this crap, but I think the conception at the time was that a black man couldn't be president. It's more likely that it was just a rumor started by Obama camp in order to sway support and motivate the ranks.
There probably wouldn't be a democrat primary for president if Obama decided to run for reelection. It's sort of tradition for party members of all parties not to field candidate against their own incumbents in high positions. If there was a challenger, it's likely that it would be an outside challenge on another party ticket altogether.
I am. And I'm surprised to see how many revisionist or clueless idiots are out there that think he was a great president. Hell, even the democrats in his congress stiffed the guy because he was so lousy.
Carter might have been a great person outside of office, but in office, he made G.W. Bush amazingly brilliant.
If it's obviously and flagrantly abused, then all that will happen is that the primary elections for candidates will end up being closed off to only registered party voters.
In fact, they do that where I live at now. You have to vote the same primary ballot as you did the year before or go independent unless you haven't voted in a primary for one cycle in which you can choose when checking in. The only other alternative is to show a party registration card.
Of course the independent or the other party won't let you vote for another parties candidates. I don't see anything wrong with that. But if this gets abused, you can expect to see systems like this nation wide in the primaries.
How's signing an unconstitutional piece of legislation into law just to have the courts determine it was unconstitutional? Was he closing his eyes and hoping no one would notice? He's supposed to be a constitutional scholar for crying out loud.
I find this hilarious.
You want our leaders to be in the top 5% of his class. But everyone else want them to be one of the people who can relate to what they are going through. It's no wonder why there appears to be such a large disconnect between politicians and the people.
Lol.. I knew I put too much whit into that post. It all got lost on you didn't it?
I'm sorry for taking up your time. You can go back to watching cartoons or whatever it was you were doing.
Well, you bring up an interesting point. Most dems and liberal say bush is stupid, that he somehow masterminded and orchestrated ripping the election off in 2000, they he lied and go us into a war no one wanted, and all sorts of other feats that totally a completely dispel the idea that he wasn't smart.
I generally ask them what it makes them if someone as dumb as Bush was able to pull so much shit off with them watching. But hey, you broght up a point, maybe the conspiracy isn't calling a brilliant man stupid, but a smart guy acting stupid in order to throw off the people watching him. That's brilliance in the work.