Open the US Presidential elections to the world


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 144 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I don't think yellowdingo's proposal would have any effect. All our important voters are international already anyway...


Jamie Lee Curtis wrote:
I am Inga, from Sweden.
thejeff wrote:
Sweden? You mean Switzerland, right?
Jamie Lee Curtis wrote:
No, from Sweden! Please to help me with my rucksack?


John Kretzer wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Relaxes]

Of course you can.

I mean seriously...this is a thread started by yellowdingo...does anybody take him serious.

Also personaly I believe all goverment systems eventualy lead to tryanny and collapse...so it really does not matter...it all ends in the same place.

So really I am pro-invidual and anti-goverment.

Looks like you are an Anarchist then....

Sigh but I hate labels...which I kinda makes me more of a anarchist...sigh I can't win.

Unfortunaly till humanity matures we are going to need goverments. They are a neccessary evil. But saying one form of goverment is superior to another is kinda laughable...just look at history.

laughable? you are kidding? You haven't read your Aristotle, Rousseau or Karl Marx have you, to name a few? The subject of what constitutes superior forms of government has been rationalised by some of the greatest political thinkers in history!

And thats a good opportunity to say that one of the great things about Golarion is that it presents most of the political systems mankind has tried - dictatorship, anarchy, feudal, oligarchy, tribal, democracy, revolutionary, theocracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah Jenni's a good lass. A bit sharp at times, but I like that in a girl.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BluePigeon wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That has nothing to do with citizenship. You're a natural born citizen if you're born in the US or born to US citizen parents. You are a citizen at birth. You do not have to wait until you're 18 and sign your Selective Service card, assuming you're required to do so. As Martin said, women do not register, but remain citizens.

The birth certificate proves citizenship because it proves where you were born and to whom. Selective Service has nothing whatsoever to do with this. In fact, resident aliens (green card holders) also have to register for Selective Service, assuming they are male and of the proper age. This does not make them citizens.

@TheJeff: No. A birth certificate is NOT A FEDERAL identification card nor does it grant you AUTOMATIC citizenship as many people assume it does. It is a state or county identification card for your birth parents. Many birth certificates have the infant's footprints as a method of identification to show ownership and the raised seal to prove where you born. Legally you are your parent's property and responsibility until your 18 years of age often before or after graduation. That is when you become a citizen of the united states. That is when you able to enter military service and are able to vote in federal and state elections. There is no known record that shows your home soil, save a church document.

As I said, if you receive a selective service card and are male, you required by law to sign it and return to the federal government. This determines citizenship, military enlistment, and passport availability as men more than women travel aboard.

If Obama was indeed born in Kenya and does have a birth certificate printed and stamped in Kenya, then he is a non-citizen and the next republican president can easily sign an executive order overturning all laws he signed into effect since Jan 2009, expect for pardons.

There is another way to obtain proof of citizenship via Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240)

Seriously, people need to stop watching the evening news and its cable affiliates. Sit down and read the civics books and use the law library. you would be be surprised how short an opinion comes too.

Last thing I say on this.

Alright, let's short circuit this: 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. A birth certificate is not a FEDERAL identification card and it does not grant you citizenship. It is proof that you qualify.
You do not become a citizen at 18. Or by registering for Selective Service. Yes, there are age limits for some of the rights and responsibilities, but you are still a citizen.

I have no idea what you mean by "There is no known record that shows your home soil, save a church document."

I particularly like how you sweep women under the table with "men more than women travel aboard", despite women being citizens even though they don't fill out the magic draft card. You also ignore that resident aliens have to register, but that doesn't make them citizens.

You are correct that if Obama was born in Kenya, he would be a non-citizen, but since he wasn't and there is and always has been abundant evidence of his birth in Hawaii, it's irrelevant. As is the Consular Record.

You might want to check those civics books yourself.

Scarab Sages

Since derailing this thread doesn't seem to be an issue;-), if Obama would have been born in Kenya, would the fact that his mother was/is a US citizen make any difference, or must both parents be US citizens? (I genuinely don't know, I am not from the US but from Germany - I ask this for information, not provocation.)


Only one parent is necessary, thus a person who is under 18 can have citizenship in two or even three countries at the same time.


feytharn wrote:
Since derailing this thread doesn't seem to be an issue;-), if Obama would have been born in Kenya, would the fact that his mother was/is a US citizen make any difference, or must both parents be US citizens? (I genuinely don't know, I am not from the US but from Germany - I ask this for information, not provocation.)

Are you asking about citizenship or eligibility to be President?

Citizen Jackson's got citizenship down, but, no, he would be ineligible to be POTUS.

I don't read civics textbooks often, but here's wikipedia.

EDIT: Or maybe not...

EDIT 2: Hey, how come McCain doesn't have to put up with this shiznit? Oh, wait a minute, I think I know the answer...

Scarab Sages

So the 'birth certificate debate' would be moot even if he was born in Kenya?


It would appear that way to me, too, but there's a reason people don't get law degrees from reading wikipedia...


Alright, let's short circuit this: 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. A birth certificate is not a FEDERAL identification card and it does not grant you citizenship. It is proof that you qualify.

[New] Bingo.

[Old] You do not become a citizen at 18. Or by registering for Selective Service. Yes, there are age limits for some of the rights and responsibilities, but you are still a citizen.

[New] This is a grey area. When I filled out my SS card, they request my fingerprints and they wanted know if I intended to leave America and settle some aboard. When I went for my TWIX card five months ago, they had them on record, but they requested new copies of my fingerprints as 22 years had lapsed as My latest job would have me doing security as port of entry along Lake Michigan.

[Old] I have no idea what you mean by "There is no known record that shows your home soil, save a church document."

[New] Church birth records are often used to determine country, state, and county of birth, often defined as home soil. Church records keep track of birth date, baptisms, parents, and in some cases lineages.

[Old] I particularly like how you sweep women under the table with "men more than women travel aboard", despite women being citizens even though they don't fill out the magic draft card. You also ignore that resident aliens have to register, but that doesn't make them citizens.

[New] The key terms in Selective Service are 18 and Male. Many men and women of foreign birth can circumvent the law and legal requirements by simple means of marriage, even as early as 18. At 18 your an adult and no longer a minor.

[Old] You are correct that if Obama was born in Kenya, he would be a non-citizen, but since he wasn't and there is and always has been abundant evidence of his birth in Hawaii, it's irrelevant. As is the Consular Record.

[New] No, The united States keeps tabs on all it's citizens aboard weather they are born inside or outside its boarders. For his mother to work as a field anthropologist in Africa and the Philippines which is outside the United States, she would need to state his nationality, place of birth, citizenship through the consular's office in order to obtain a passport, visa, or some exit permit. In that, I find it hard swallow that the media would ignore such fact and necessary information. Having two family member that have resided outside the United States, I remain skeptical about Obama's origins of birth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

EDIT 2: Hey, how come McCain doesn't have to put up with this shiznit? Oh, wait a minute, I think I know the answer...

3 reasons (or more).

One: He lost. If he had won I'm sure we would be hearing about it, but not to the degree we hear about Obama because.....

Two: McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone while his father was on active duty. Very few people are eager for the tar-and-feather response that would come in defense of the soldiers.

Three: McCain is white.

Personally I think both were citizens at birth, and therefore, natural born citizens.


Thank you, Citizen Lensman, I had come up with one of those.

Anyway, I don't have much good to say about the American Socialist Workers Party post-1965, but this is pretty cool.

Workers have no fatherland!

Vive le Galt!

EDIT: Even better, he had a felony marijuana conviction from when he was 19.

Vive le [bubble bubble bubble]!

The Exchange

So if presented with the prospect of this idea to open US Presidential Elections to anyone prepared to recognize the right of the US to exist, would you protest?


Yes

Your Australian...how about petition the government to let everyone in the world vote in your elections. Let us know how that goes.


BluePigeon wrote:

Alright, let's short circuit this: 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. A birth certificate is not a FEDERAL identification card and it does not grant you citizenship. It is proof that you qualify.

[New] Bingo.

I don't think you actually agree with me here. It's not an id card. You don't need one. You don't become a citizen by filling out a form or signing anything. You are one at birth.

BluePigeon wrote:

[Old] You do not become a citizen at 18. Or by registering for Selective Service. Yes, there are age limits for some of the rights and responsibilities, but you are still a citizen.

[New] This is a grey area. When I filled out my SS card, they request my fingerprints and they wanted know if I intended to leave America and settle some aboard. When I went for my TWIX card five months ago, they had them on record, but they requested new copies of my fingerprints as 22 years had lapsed as My latest job would have me doing security as port of entry along Lake Michigan.

It is not a gray area. I'm sure they asked you those things, but that was for their own internal purposes, not to make you a citizen.

BluePigeon wrote:


[Old] I have no idea what you mean by "There is no known record that shows your home soil, save a church document."

[New] Church birth records are often used to determine country, state, and county of birth, often defined as home soil. Church records keep track of birth date, baptisms, parents, and in some cases lineages.

That's nice and great for historical research, but in the modern world the government tracks births. That's generally how you prove where and when you were born. If for some reason there is no birth certificate (county hall burned down!) you can try other sources, but the birth certificate is the first stop.

I've never been a member of a church, nor were my parents when I was born. Is there no know record that shows my "home soil"? Of course there is. I have a birth certificate.

BluePigeon wrote:


[Old] I particularly like how you sweep women under the table with "men more than women travel aboard", despite women being citizens even though they don't fill out the magic draft card. You also ignore that resident aliens have to register, but that doesn't make them citizens.

[New] The key terms in Selective Service are 18 and Male. Many men and women of foreign birth can circumvent the law and legal requirements by simple means of marriage, even as early as 18. At 18 your an adult and no longer a minor.

All true, but completely unrelated to Selective Service making you a citizen. I'm not sure what you mean by "circumvent the law". If you have a green card and are Male and between 18 and 25 you are required to register. You don't have to marry or do anything, but be a male of the

Here ask the Selective Service themselves.
Quote:

NON-CITIZENS

Some non-citizens are required to register. Others are not. Noncitizens who are not required to register with Selective Service include men who are in the U.S. on student or visitor visas, and men who are part of a diplomatic or trade mission and their families. Almost all other male noncitizens are required to register, including illegal aliens, legal permanent residents, and refugees. The general rule is that if a male noncitizen takes up residency in the U.S. before his 26th birthday, he must register with Selective Service.
BluePigeon wrote:


[Old] You are correct that if Obama was born in Kenya, he would be a non-citizen, but since he wasn't and there is and always has been abundant evidence of his birth in Hawaii, it's irrelevant. As is the Consular Record.

[New] No, The united States keeps tabs on all it's citizens aboard weather they are born inside or outside its boarders. For his mother to work as a field anthropologist in Africa and the Philippines which is outside the United States, she would need to state his nationality, place of birth, citizenship through the consular's office in order to obtain a passport, visa, or some exit permit. In that, I find it hard swallow that the media would ignore such fact and necessary information. Having two family member that have resided outside the United States, I remain skeptical about Obama's origins of birth.

Are you just saying here that that would be a place to look for even more evidence that he's a citizen? And that somehow, just because it hasn't been made publicly available that makes you even more skeptical?

The media, except for the crackpots, looked at the birth certificate and said, Well that proves it. It's clear. It's done. It's proven. It's dead. There's no big mystery, except why it keeps getting dragged out of the grave.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How this would work in practice:

China requires all of its citizens to "recognise the US Constitution". China requires all of its citizens to vote in the US presidential elections.

Congratulations, you just gave China absolute control over who becomes POTUS.


MMCJawa wrote:

Yes

Your Australian...how about petition the government to let everyone in the world vote in your elections. Let us know how that goes.

Given Australia's Compulsory Voting laws and my "Voting is for ninnies!" position, please, Comrade Dingo, don't do this.


Chemlak wrote:

How this would work in practice:

China requires all of its citizens to "recognise the US Constitution". China requires all of its citizens to vote in the US presidential elections.

Congratulations, you just gave China absolute control over who becomes POTUS.

And it would have worked, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!


thejeff wrote:
Assuming that I'm blind to it, what do you think are the crazy and fringe elements on the left?

This here folks is what I call a trap. I rather clumsy one at that as he revealed it down it later.

thejeff wrote:
Not just the equivalents of the birthers, but of the science deniers and the "drown government in a bathtub" types?

Well see here he uses the fear causeing name of a idea that is held by rebulicans...actualy one I have not heard before.

"drown goverment in the bathtub" means what exactly? I don't think anyone that has influence or in seriousness has ever suggested that we start actualy killing goverment officials. So please say what you mean..not campaign slogans.

Do you mean people who believe we need less goverment? While you might not necessarily agree with this staement..it is not crazy or even dangerous...anymore than we need more goverment. It is actualy the central debate. So right here you reveal that you believe most republicans are crazy and dangerous.

thejeff wrote:
For example, the left equivalent of the Free Market fundamentalists would be Communists, and despite some name calling from the right, they've got no influence on the Democratic party.

First...I would not call communist crazy...I would not call in political system believers crazy. It is their right after all. And who know maybe they will get it right one of these days.

Second...see the group I point out here will be disimessed as to not having influence or defended as not crazy. You will also point out that I must be parniod.

This why political debate is dead. Republicans do so too...but Democrats seem to get away with from it.


John Kretzer wrote:


"drown goverment in the bathtub" means what exactly? I don't think anyone that has influence or in seriousness has ever suggested that we start actualy killing goverment officials. So please say what you mean..not campaign slogans.

It means this.


ed griffin wrote:
laughable? you are kidding? You haven't read your Aristotle, Rousseau or Karl Marx have you, to name a few? The subject of what constitutes superior forms of government has been rationalised by some of the greatest political thinkers in history!

I laugh because otherwise I'll cry. :)

Yes I have read them...and also look at what happens when their visions are implemented. I did not mean to suggest their idiots...but there is no right way to goverment. All systems will decay and die. Nothing lasts for ever. That is just the nature of things. So getting riled up about it I kinda think is pointless.

I will say Democracey like the US is probably going to be longer lasting as it can change and adapt a little better than most of the others. But once the people realize they can vote themselves bread and circus...that is merely the beginning of the end.

ed griffin wrote:
And thats a good opportunity to say that one of the great things about Golarion is that it presents most of the political systems mankind has tried - dictatorship, anarchy, feudal, oligarchy, tribal, democracy, revolutionary, theocracy.

Which nation is anarchy? But yes it is pretty cool...but there is no communists are there? I do love studying the different forms of goverment...I am just realistic (though I guess some may call me pessimetic.)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


"drown goverment in the bathtub" means what exactly? I don't think anyone that has influence or in seriousness has ever suggested that we start actualy killing goverment officials. So please say what you mean..not campaign slogans.
It means this.

What no shout out for defending communist from being called crazy or fringe?

While so in his example he propped up a Libterine as a Republican. You do know that those are two different parties right?


Um, it's okay if people think communists are crazy. Sometimes, I think we're crazy. But, thank you.

Also, if you mean Grover Norquist, he is most certainly a member of the Republican Party.

I don't really have any dog in the "which party sucks more--the Republicans or the Democrats?" race, but I thought you'd like to know where the "drowning the government" thing came from.


John Kretzer wrote:
Which nation is anarchy? But yes it is pretty cool...but there is no communists are there? I do love studying the different forms of goverment...I am just realistic (though I guess some may call me pessimetic.)

Some (counterrevolutionary stooges) would argue that the Glorious People's Revolution in Galt is a form of anarchy, but when we catch them, we cut off their heads.

Vive le Galt!

As for communism...


Check out the Dragon Empires book.

Long live Grandfather Pei Thought!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Um, it's okay if people think communists are crazy. Sometimes, I think we're crazy. But, thank you.

Also, if you mean Grover Norquist, he is most certainly a member of the Republican Party.

I don't really have any dog in the "which party sucks more--the Republicans or the Democrats?" race, but I thought you'd like to know where the "drowning the government" thing came from.

I never heard of him before now. But reading the link you provided it ids him as a Conservative Libtarine. I would imaginer a conservative democrat is ossible and a liberal republican is possible...shrug.

But it is people saying crazy things to make a point...sorta like oh I don't know...

"put y'all back in chains"

or

"If you don't pass my bill the effects will be devasting"

or

"Well if you want to know what is in the bill you will just have to pass it"


@Comradeanklebiter: I would more call Galt the revolutionary type goverment...which is true...it is just one long revolt...

And yes I forgot the Dragon Empires book.

There is also the Brave New World gov. Hermea? Or would that be more like the Beyond This Horizon...probably a mix of both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is a conservative libertarian,[3] and founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. He is known as the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which prior to the November 2012 election was signed by 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination,[4] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.[5] He is a member of the Republican Party."

Note the use and non-use of capital letters. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are not just possible, they actually exist, although there aren't many of the latter running around anymore.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is a conservative libertarian,[3] and founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. He is known as the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which prior to the November 2012 election was signed by 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination,[4] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.[5] He is a member of the Republican Party."

Note the use and non-use of capital letters. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are not just possible, they actually exist, although there aren't many of the latter running around anymore.

You are correct. I should I have noticed the capitals.


John Kretzer wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


"drown goverment in the bathtub" means what exactly? I don't think anyone that has influence or in seriousness has ever suggested that we start actualy killing goverment officials. So please say what you mean..not campaign slogans.
It means this.

What no shout out for defending communist from being called crazy or fringe?

While so in his example he propped up a Libterine as a Republican. You do know that those are two different parties right?

From that same page
Quote:
Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is a conservative libertarian, and founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. He is known as the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which prior to the November 2012 election was signed by 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate. He is a member of the Republican Party.

He's a libertarian by philosophy, but a Republican by party. And a very influential one. Behind the scenes, perhaps, but influential.

I wouldn't call the Communists crazy either, but they're definitely fringe in the US.

You started this by claiming both parties were being taken over by their extreme fringes. I've got a pretty good idea what the Republican fringe looks like and I agree they're pretty close to running the show. I want to know where this Democratic fringe that's controlling the party is. Because from where I'm standing, we need them.
As far as I can see the major problem with the Democratic party today is that it's followed the Republicans too the right, trying to sweep up moderates repulsed by Republican extremism. It looks to me like we have a far right party and a center right party. How is the Democratic party being taken over by the fringe? How does that fringe compare with moderate left parties in Europe? Or with Democrats of 40 years ago?

That last with the possible exception of minority civil rights and the definite exception of gay rights.

The Exchange

Soon as I saw the thread title I thought "Yellow Dingo is at it again, screwing with the Americans again". Getting predictable.


Here in OTD, we like the old stand-bys.


Fake Healer wrote:
Soon as I saw the thread title I thought "Yellow Dingo is at it again, screwing with the Americans again". Getting predictable.

Well yeah, but we've largely ignored his premise and moved on to other polite discussions.


So, apropos of nothing much, I decided to scratch a recurring itch and looked up Richard Dawkins's political affiliation.

Turns out (at least, according to wikipedia) that he's a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, who are a merger of the British Liberal Party (center-right) and the Social Democratic Party, which was a right-wing split from the British Labour Party (center-left).

So, I guess he does, in the American context, qualify as crazy fringe left, although I'm guessing that in a European context he is as far right as a center-leftist can be.

What do you think, non-American Paizonians?


thejeff wrote:


You started this by claiming both parties were being taken over by their extreme fringes.

Actualy I claimed both sides have extremeist and fringe. Not that they are running any party(you did that with the repubulicans). My claim is that the extremist have taken over the debate and perception of the parties...more on the republican side than the democrat side I'll grant you.

thejeff wrote:
He's a libertarian by philosophy, but a Republican by party. And a very influential one. Behind the scenes, perhaps, but influential.

Oh so now you have a direct link to behind the scenes of the Republican party.

Well in that case the communist totaly have a large influence, albeit behind the scene, with the Democrats.

Also I fail to see how shrinking goverment and it's role is a extreme opinion when enlarging the goverment's role is not? Personaly neither are extreme. They can be taken to extreme lengths though.

Can you explain why to me that I am a extremeist(note I am a independent) because I don't think the goverment should be as large as it is now? How am I some crazy whack job?

Is it because I simply disagree with you on this issue?

The Exchange

MMCJawa wrote:

Yes

Your Australian...how about petition the government to let everyone in the world vote in your elections. Let us know how that goes.

We are a sock puppet government kept by US presidents who feel lonely...

Even now Americans are fleeing here in their hundreds...to work at COSTCO.

GWB (holds up rubbery figure of John Howard): "See! I have a Friend! He's an Aus-sie!"

The Exchange

Vo Giap, Ambassador of Bachuan wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

How this would work in practice:

China requires all of its citizens to "recognise the US Constitution". China requires all of its citizens to vote in the US presidential elections.

Congratulations, you just gave China absolute control over who becomes POTUS.

And it would have worked, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!

Except...a billion Hindu emerge to counter that vote with a vote for the other guy. Stalemate.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Oh so now you have a direct link to behind the scenes of the Republican party.

When a vast majority of Republican congressmen sign a pledge you wrote, I think it's safe to say you've got a bit of influence.


John Kretzer wrote:
thejeff wrote:


You started this by claiming both parties were being taken over by their extreme fringes.

Actualy I claimed both sides have extremeist and fringe. Not that they are running any party(you did that with the repubulicans). My claim is that the extremist have taken over the debate and perception of the parties...more on the republican side than the democrat side I'll grant you.

thejeff wrote:
He's a libertarian by philosophy, but a Republican by party. And a very influential one. Behind the scenes, perhaps, but influential.

Oh so now you have a direct link to behind the scenes of the Republican party.

Well in that case the communist totaly have a large influence, albeit behind the scene, with the Democrats.

Also I fail to see how shrinking goverment and it's role is a extreme opinion when enlarging the goverment's role is not? Personaly neither are extreme. They can be taken to extreme lengths though.

Can you explain why to me that I am a extremeist(note I am a independent) because I don't think the goverment should be as large as it is now? How am I some crazy whack job?

Is it because I simply disagree with you on this issue?

I have no direct link to the secrets of the Republican party. His influence is well documented going back at least a couple of decades to Gingrich's takeover of the House in the 90s. It's not a secret. He's just not a front man. He doesn't campaign or run for office. The most recent example of his influence is the Taxpayer's Pledge that the vast majority of the 2012 Republican candidates signed onto.

Shrinking government isn't extreme. I think it's the wrong way to look at things, but it's not extreme. Wanting to repeal essentially the entire 20th century is extreme.

Quote:

Kroft: I mean, you did say that your ultimate ambition was to chop it in half and then shrink it again to where we were at the turn of the century. You're talking about 1900 not 2000.

Norquist: Well, the-- I think--

Kroft: Eight percent of GDP.

Norquist: Yeah. We functioned in this country with government at eight percent of GDP for a long time and quite well.

Kroft: That was before Social Security. It was before Medicare. It was before welfare assistance, unemployment assistance. Is that the federal government you envision?

Norquist: Each of these government programs were set up supposedly, in name, to solve a problem. Okay. Do they solve the problem? Could the problem be better solved through individual initiative? I mean, I think we've found under welfare that we are doing more harm than good.

John Kretzer wrote:
Also I am curious you don't think there is a crazy fringe in the democratic party? and it is growing. Both parties are being taken over by the fanatics...that is why polics are so polarizing in this country.

This is what I meant. I don't see any evidence the Democrats are being taken over by their fanatics. If anything, the Democrats continue moving to the right or the center.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Despite his desire to shrink government he doesn't seem to have any problems allying with the "family values" conservatives.

Government shouldn't tax much, but it's quite all right for it to limit abortions, discriminate against homosexuals, etc. Which has led to all sorts of jokes about "shrinking government down to the size where it fits in your bedroom" or "shrinking government down to the size where it fits in a woman's vagina".

The Exchange

Fake Healer wrote:
Soon as I saw the thread title I thought "Yellow Dingo is at it again, screwing with the Americans again". Getting predictable.

Given 'we the people' is pretty much open to the world, I think the Obama Administration is either giving everyone a place to scream their dreams to the heavens - without them having any power to influence the government, or just proving he is amenable to the expansion of the US beyond the need for citizenship...


More government handouts to buy votes. This is such a good idea.


yellowdingo wrote:
Vo Giap, Ambassador of Bachuan wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

How this would work in practice:

China requires all of its citizens to "recognise the US Constitution". China requires all of its citizens to vote in the US presidential elections.

Congratulations, you just gave China absolute control over who becomes POTUS.

And it would have worked, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!
Except...a billion Hindu emerge to counter that vote with a vote for the other guy. Stalemate.

Oh, I don't know, Comrade Dingo. I bet the Naxalites and the various CPIs could deliver plenty of Indian votes to the PRC's party line.

101 to 144 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Open the US Presidential elections to the world All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions