Disqus - Latest Comments for electiongeek

Re: Election 2008 Open Thre

electiongeek — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:29:00 -0000

From Exit polling. They ask people as they are coming out who they are etc. Then use that sample to estimate the overall vote.

Re: Election 2008 Open Thre

electiongeek — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:01:24 -0000

Sorry but I don't control the advertising that directly, as I note on the About page I just let it run.

Re: Biden on the Vice Presidency, Cheney & the Constitution

electiongeek — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:25:25 -0000

The Quote:

"The idea he (CHENEY) doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States (IT DOES), that’s the Executive Branch (ARTICLE 1 IS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, HE CITED THE WRONG ARTICLE). He works in the Executive Branch (I am not denying this fact). He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."

He was FOLLOWING her question, but he was ARGUING that the interpretation that the VP Cheney should have more legislative power is flawd by citing the wrong Article and asserting that article places the VP in the executive Branch.

He should have said, Article 2 places the VP in the Executive Branch, as is historically accepted and the VP's very limited and ceremonial legislative powers are derived from Article 1.

Re: Biden on the Vice Presidency, Cheney & the Constitution

electiongeek — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:31:55 -0000

If you read the blog post, you will see I clearly say "While I am not going to argue in favor or against Cheney’s interpretation," this blog post is not a discussion of Vice Presidential Powers. It is pointing out that Article 1 is not about Executive Powers but legislative. That article makes the VP the president of the Senate and gives him a tie-breaking vote.

Also it is Article 1, not Amendment 1.

Additionally, I just want to throw in this point and not get into a giant thing. But my point is this. It would be like saying "VP Cheney believing there should be limits on speech ignores the Second Amendment which clearly defines the freedom of speech." Then I write a post and I say "Listen, the second amendment does not provide freedom of speech. He meant to say the first amendment. The second amendment doesn't guarentee us free speech."

Then I get a comments saying "Biden was right that we have free speech. You are a right wing nutjob for saying otherwise." Yes we have free speech in that example, but he had the wrong amendment.

If everyone wants to debate VP powers and the candidates views, let me know and I will start a blog post and we can talk. OR if you want to discuss amongst yourselves here, fine. But I was pointing out a mistake. Article 1 does not make the VP part of an executive branch. You can argue Article 2 does that but Article 1 creates a legislative branch and makes the VP the president of one part of that legislature and gives him a vote in a specific circumstance.

Re: Biden on the Vice Presidency, Cheney & the Constitution

electiongeek — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:23:35 -0000

How is it misrepresentative? In responding to that question he asserted that Article 1 places the VP in the executive branch and scolded Cheney for not knowing the Constitution. However Article 1 outlines the legislative branch, not the executive. Biden was trying to show superior knowledge of Constitutional law, but in so doing, misquoted the Constitution.

Re: Pelosi Changing Course on Offshore Drilling?

electiongeek — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:34:39 -0000

The topic is actually about 20 years old or so now. Republicans have wanted us to increase domestic oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and offshore, Democrats have claimed it would "take five or ten years" to see a boost and would come at an environmental cost. Here we are.

Re: McCaskill Vs. Fiorina on Meet the Press

electiongeek — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:18:04 -0000

Thanks for the rundown Jim. I honestly was not impressed with either of them. I have to disagree, I think Brokaw did a good job of keeping both balanced and several times he hit Fiorina over some of her statements.

Re: Obama Vs. McCain Blues

electiongeek — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:22:29 -0000

I meant $102,000 on that second number, not sure why I wrote $90,000 after citing the 2008 number other than I spent the day doing landscaping work on the house and am REALLY tired. Same with the ANWR and isle. Thanks for noting.

Re: Obama Vs. McCain Blues

electiongeek — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:03:50 -0000

Well first off, I would say George Bush was pretty freely able to exercise his ideas during his first term, maybe the closest since FDR. Remember FDR wasn't able to steamroll everything he wanted to do either, there are always limitations. LBJ obviously a close second with Reagan pretty capable at pushing legislation through as well. The greater point to be made here though is that presidents are not Kings and so this notion that Obama will single handedly "change" Washington through sheer force of his personality alone is laughable, as much as it was for Bush, Clinton and just about every candidate who promises the same. Yet another "same old, same old" we have heard it all before campaign.

Second Obama has changed his position on the War several times through out the campaign from the far-left non-pragmatic vision of the world to a confusing "I will keep contingency troops, but have all troops out, I will send troops back in if violence erupts or a dictator steps in but there is no hope of progress" mess.

That is one of his tax policies. Along with the desire to raise the SS tax on earnings over $102,000 a year. Which is in itself not at all a new idea and in addition an unfair addition seeing as the reason there is a cap is because beyond $90,000 paid to the entitlement will never even remotely be paid back. In an entitlement, you pay in, you take out and then the next group does the same. Changing that makes it a progressive tax that puts a new unfair burden on the wealthy to support those that won't put in anything close to what they are taking out.

Now if anyone thinks we can add more entitlement programs, like health care, not to mention more spending for education, more spending for the military, more foreign aid etc. and not see those in the middle class pay higher taxes then they aren't living in the real world. Now add to that tax cuts for the middle class, spending for "green" technology", infrastructure rebuilding, faith-based programs and other programs put forward by Obama and you see where this is going.

We've had eight years of spending without any control and we are living the consequences. There is absolutely nothing I have seen between Obama or McCain that is "new" or will actually revolutionize our economy or solve our nations problems.

Re: Obama Says bin Laden Deserves Habeas Corpus Rights

electiongeek — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:32:37 -0000

We are talking about the law not a philosophical judgment. At this point there is already a presidential order, which Obama seems to suggest he will not rescind, to kill bin Laden on sight. So it is likely we will never have a trial. There are also better ways of dealing with it quickly and efficiently and more securely, but allowing the United Nations to setup a tribunal.

At the end of the day though bin Laden poses a unique case that does not necessarily afford him the right to American style due process and personal rights.

Re: Obama Says bin Laden Deserves Habeas Corpus Rights

electiongeek — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:06:15 -0000

Writ = "a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction. In modern usage, this public body is normally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are types of writs, but there are many others."

I think it is pretty clear Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 as well as a host of other despicable acts.

Remember too bin Laden is currently not a citizen of any nation, Saudi Arabia stripped him of his citizenship.

Re: Obama Says bin Laden Deserves Habeas Corpus Rights

electiongeek — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:20:40 -0000

1) Habeas not Habeus
2) While the United States by no means invented the Writ we are concerned with American law because Senator Obama is not the Prime Minister of England but seeking the presidency of the United States. It appears Senator Obama and his advisers, who are invoking the Supreme Court decision in relation to bin Laden's rights, is also suggesting he will be tried within the American legal system. This is counter to the history of the Nuremberg trials.

Re: Obama’s List & The Fact Richardson is Not On It

electiongeek — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:02:50 -0000

It is a good point, with that said everyone always claims they won't accept or are not interested and then suddenly "well, for the good of the country, I guess I have to!"

Re: The Top 5 Dumbest Moments of the Clinton Campaign

electiongeek — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:55:41 -0000

You sure? I can watch them all fine and asked others and they can see them fine.