ONLY AUTHORIZED ELECTION NEWS THREAD--no debating allowed

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Charles Koch says Hillary Clinton might be better than GOP candidates

Out of interest... how do you pronounce Koch in the US?

[Denarius]

Re: Charles Koch says Hillary Clinton might be better than GOP candidates

She is the safest pick from a big business point of view, she loves her some corporations. The only other viable candidate as far as expanding corporate interests go is Cruz, and he's iffy at best.

[ThePaganMafia]

Re: Charles Koch says Hillary Clinton might be better than GOP candidates

He's not wrong. I would take a Clinton over an orange child and the theocrat no one can stand.

[anunitu]

ONLY AUTHORIZED ELECTION NEWS THREAD--no debating allowed

You most likely know about the Koch brothers,and their republican backing.
Now Charles Koch has said this.

"Conservative billionaire Charles Koch says that it's possible that he could support Hillary Clinton for president over any of the GOP presidential candidates.

In an interview in Kansas that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Koch was asked if it's possible for another Clinton to be better than another Republican after he said President Bill Clinton "in some ways" was better than President George W. Bush."

Not sure an endorsement for Hillary from him is a positive.

This election year is so full of surprises.

Buckle up kids,it is going to be a bumpy ride.

[anunitu]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

All the whining about the rules in the GOP..and a tiny bit in the DNC I watched a piece on the news that mentioned these party groups are PRIVATE groups,and since they only nominate someone to run in their name,they can change the rules when ever they want. The whole people voting is more to allow the public to feel involved in the choice.

The general election is a whole other matter. That is by and for the American voters. In a technical way,the GOP,and the DNC could just pick who ever they want to run..no official government involvement in picking their candidate,except the rules as to being qualified(For Prez,being at least 35,citizen, and like that) I guess that means I can't run my pet turtle..

[MaskedOne]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

Among other things, letter of the law, would I'm relatively sure, require the Army to eat the Air Force...

Whether that's a good thing might be open to debate...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

It is difficult to find a person(Judge) that can maintain neutrality in their judgments..but a person with enough integrity and honor can be just in their findings.

There's actually two problems that go on at the same time -

First, you're right. Everybody has built in biases, and, while it is possible to overcome them, one has to first become aware of them. This is why we needed a women's suffragette movement before women got to vote. The bias against women was so prevalent that most people just didn't question it.

The second problem is that the Constitution, as Thalassa said, is a LIVING document. The country's founders were better in their dreaming than they were in their life - which allowed them to talk about freedom while still holding slaves. We need to move in the direction of their dreams, not emulate their faults... So the Constitution sometimes needs amending.

Along with this, the original framers were not particularly great wizards for whom the future held no mysteries, despite what yo may sometimes hear. They could not, and did not predict many of the changes that would take place in our society in the following 220 years. The upshot of their great fault of failing to be infallible is that there are things not mentioned in the Constitution that have become of major importance today. The judges need to interpret the Constitution in these cases - but they can't go by the "letter of the law" because their IS no letter of the law.

When you add one and two together you do not always make people happy, but as long as you get three-ish, things will be OK.

[anunitu]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

It is difficult to find a person(Judge) that can maintain neutrality in their judgments..but a person with enough integrity and honor can be just in their findings.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

I wouldn't necessarily object to shorter supreme court terms as long as

A. They are still relatively long (minimum of 10 years)
B. They only get one term.

Once you start tying their position to popularity, you're doing it wrong.

[thalassa]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

Yeah, but where are they going to learn it? Schools don't get enough funding and society doesn't value it.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

If more citizens knew this kind of stuff there'd be fewer politicians able to get away with junk.

Or maybe not.

Maybe people just don't like freedom and dignity these days.

[thalassa]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

What I thought was most telling was, when asked a direct question by a gay Republican about what Cruz would do to protect his and his husband's marriage, Cruz rambled on about the first sixth of the First Amendment without actually answering the question.

Cruz seems to love that bit of the Constitution.

Then, when forced back to the actual question asked, he suggested that the Supreme Court isn't qualified to make a decision about constitutionality because they do not owe their continued office-holding to a particular political agenda.

Did he miss the civics lesson where it was explained that that's the whole point of appointing the Supreme's for life????

Such a fundamental part of the American theory of government, and a candidate for president doesn't get it?

I'm not terribly surprised that one (or more) of the candidates don't get it. Most of your average citizenry don't get it (make that #101 on the list of things my 3rd grader knows that my neighbor doesn't)... And while one would hope they could be held to higher expectations, you need to have a basic understanding of what those expectations should be in the first place.

Many people (particularly so-called Constitutionalists) have a terrible understanding of how living documents work--they are no better than fundy Biblical literalists.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

What I thought was most telling was, when asked a direct question by a gay Republican about what Cruz would do to protect his and his husband's marriage, Cruz rambled on about the first sixth of the First Amendment without actually answering the question.

Cruz seems to love that bit of the Constitution.

Then, when forced back to the actual question asked, he suggested that the Supreme Court isn't qualified to make a decision about constitutionality because they do not owe their continued office-holding to a particular political agenda.

Did he miss the civics lesson where it was explained that that's the whole point of appointing the Supreme's for life????

Such a fundamental part of the American theory of government, and a candidate for president doesn't get it?

[anunitu]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

Not going to comment on Cruz or other candidates. There is a whole lot of crazy out there this election season..little about local races though,and those are also important.

[thalassa]

Re: Cruz is anti-SCOTUS

You may notice that this thread looks a bit different.

That is because it has received a face-lift from the off-topicness, bad manners, and all-around ***hattery.

Either engage in civil discourse or GO AWAY.

Anyone that cannot manage that will have their access to this thread revoked.