Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 2
VPPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
It depends on how he's polling when the convention rolls around. McCain chose Palin because all indications were that he was going to lose, and he needed something to change the narrative. It even worked for a week or so until she had to talk.

Marco Rubio looks like the odds on favourite. Paul Ryan would be a disaster - the Republicans definitely don't want the electorate to see what this guy is proposing. Huntsman is the only Republican who was vying for the ticket himself who would be viable - the fact that he was willing to be bipartisan killed him among Republicans, but you don't win a general election by just getting Republicans voting for you.

Hillary has already said she's done after this term. Biden has always wanted Secretary of State, so sliding him over to Foggy Bottom and opening up the running mate slot makes sense. Obama is probably going to win, and his VP would then be the presumptive nominee for 2016. Andrew Cuomo might be a good fit.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 3
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 4:11:26 AM
Its a wash either way the vote goes we lose.......
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 5
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 10:00:55 AM
"Krispy Kreme" Christie? I hope not. He seems fine on the surface, but he's a closet liberal.

I'm guessing Rubio, but I wish it were Michele Bachmann. And if not her, then Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota. I don't care what her politics are.

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 6
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 12:42:00 PM
The VP position is a jumping off point for a Presidential run. It certainly has been for my entire life at any rate. I think only Spiro Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller and Dan Quayle have held that position and not subsequently run during my 50 years - and Rockefeller planned to. I think even Quayle has had a couple of exploratory committees at different times.

It seems a waste to have a guy in that position who won't be using it to make another run. Biden served his purpose in 2008. It's not the job he really wants, and there are a lot of people who would like to have it. Some of them would even be good at it.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 7
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 1:34:44 PM
From wikipedia:


Marco Antonio Rubio (born May 28, 1971) is the junior United States Senator from Florida...


and


His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.


So, Rubio was born in 1971 and his parents were naturalized in 1975 - Rubio, like the Obama, is not a natural born citizen and is Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency.

With our criminal government, it probably doesn't matter - after all, the fraud Obama IS the President, even though he is also Constitutionally ineligible.

RPL
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 8
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 1:46:11 PM
Your understanding of that phrase is completely at odds with every credible legal interpretation of it. Let it go.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:10:09 PM

... like the Obama, is not a natural born citizen and is Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency.

LMAO ... If President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then neither are 99.99999% of us.

I think Michelle Bachmann is a good VP candidate for Romney.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:32:58 PM
HalftimeDad said:


Your understanding of that phrase is completely at odds with every credible legal interpretation of it. Let it go.


How do you define "credible?" Can you cite a credible authority? I have seen no credible legal interpretation that defines "natural born citizen" as just "anybody born in the country." But that hasn't stopped the courts.

A couple of courts have recently held that, because they believe the Obama was born in America, he is therefore a natural born citizen. This is incompetence of the highest order.

Both judges who so held should be immediately disbarred. By holding (incorrectly) as they did, they have rendered Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution irrelevant. They have made the (improper) decision that the framers of the Constitution inserted irrelevant and superfluous clauses to the Constitution. According to former Chief Justice John Marshall, such an interpretation of the Constitution is "inadmissible." Justice Marshalls was, and is, the correct, Constitutional interpretation, and has been BINDING for 230 years.

These judges' decisions go against 230 years of legal precedent - specifically, statutory construction - and are legally indefensible. IF it ever reaches the Supremes, they will be compelled to find Chief Justice Marshall's (and my) interpretation correct, or they will be compelled to overturn 230 years of Constitutional jurisprudence. If it reaches the Supremes, they will find that a "natural born citizen" requires 2 citizen parents and a child born in America. They have no choice. Perhaps that is why Justice Thomas has stated that they (the Supremes) are "avoiding" the issue.

OyVay said:


According to what I read, his parents had lived in the USA since 1956, and Marco was born in Miami. If that is the case, whether his parents were naturalized or not, by virtue of his being born here, being subject to it's laws, he is a natural born citizen.


Then you assert that Article 2, Section 1 is superfluous, and that our framers didn't understand the law? Really? Sorry, Oy - you are mistaken.

Cotter said:


LMAO ... If President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then neither are 99.99999% of us.


Cotter has no conception of legal or Constitutional interpretation - or she wouldn't have made such a facially ignorant statement.

Sorry to push this somewhat off topic, but an explanation was needed.

RPL
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 11
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:37:01 PM

How do you define "credible?" Can you cite a credible authority? I have seen no credible legal interpretation that defines "natural born citizen" as just "anybody born in the country." But that hasn't stopped the courts.

A couple of courts have recently held that, because they believe the Obama was born in America, he is therefore a natural born citizen. This is incompetence of the highest order.

I guess the first source I would cite then would be.....EVERY COURT THAT HAS EVER RULED ON IT.

The actually hold more credence and more legal weight than crackpot websites and people who really, really hate having a black man as President.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 12
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:48:00 PM
Yeah. If Romney can find someone who will carry Ohio, he stands a much greater chance of winning. No Republican has ever won the Presidency without taking Ohio.

But nobody votes for the person who is the vice Presidential nominee. So that person would have to be wildly popular in Ohio to create a huge state organization. Natalie Portman could do it. But that's probably not who you're talking about.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 13
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 3:10:31 PM
Lindsay Lohan, he'd get the younger & the older perv male votes
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 3:41:21 PM


LMAO ... If President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then neither are 99.99999% of us.

Cotter has no conception of legal or Constitutional interpretation - or she wouldn't have made such a facially ignorant statement.

Sorry to push this somewhat off topic, but an explanation was needed.
C'mon ... do you really think anyone in here takes you seriously? You know, posting insulting ugly remarks isn't going to cause anyone to take you seriously either.


I guess you guys should take this over to one of the birther threads and hash it out...since it has diddly to do with the topic here.
Agreed!!! You see what happened to me. If a person points anything of intelligence out, they get assaulted with insulting ugly remarks ... sigh. Hey I truly thought the guy was joking! I honestly didn't think anyone takes that kind of birther sh1t seriously.

OT ...
Romney is going to need someone who he thinks can buy him the state of Ohio because he sure won't take it on his own.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 15
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 3:46:39 PM
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Mexico !!!, thus was not a 'natural-born' American according to the birthers..thus he was Mexican, thus Milt twas born to Mexican father, thus is NOT eligible to be president!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 16
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 4:05:42 PM
the question of citizenship actually came up the FIRST time in 1968 when George Romney, Mitt's daddy, was running vs. Richard Nixon to be the Republican candidate for President..even though he was born in MEXICO (outside the USA) he was born to US citizen parents & thus deemed to be a natural-born US citizen & eligible to be President .

anyone born anywhere in the world to US parents (or even ONE us citizen parent & one not) OR born on US territory to non-citizens is deemed a natural -born US citizen 9also other categories may also be deemed such relating to people serving in the US military, even if not citizens, or no tin USA, etc.)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/how-mitt-romneys-mexican-born-father-was-eligible-to-be-president/

"“There have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens,” the report states. “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ’in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

"omney was the first presidential candidate born outside the United States, and his decision to run against Nixon in the Republican primary of 1968 raised many questions.

“This is not the kind of issue that was decided by the courts,” Spiro said. “No court has said definitively, but I think there’s some consensus understanding that a person such as George Romney would be eligible to be president.”

The issue came to the limelight again in 2008 with both parties’ candidates.

Sen. John McCain was born on a U.S. naval air station in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was posted there, leading some to question whether he would be eligible for the presidency. It turned out to be a non-issue because a law passed in 1937, and applied retroactively, gave citizenship to anyone born in Panama whose mother or father was a U.S. citizen.

President Obama was dogged for much longer by the birther movement about where he was born. The president released his birth certificate as proof that he was born in Hawaii."

yes, Hawaii is, and was at the time of Obama's birth, part of the USA, a full-fledged state in fact

John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate for President, also was born in Panama, not the USA. but deemed to be a natural-born citizen since his parents were US citizens
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 17
VP
Posted: 4/25/2012 4:18:43 PM
You know who would be a great pick for Romney? Bruce Willis.

He's a Republican, and he's freakin' John McClane! A much under rated actor. A smart, funny guy in person. And, God forbid anything happened to the President, everyone would feel safer with President Willis. He just naturally looks like the guy every politician tries to look like.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 18
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 9:39:10 AM
^^


He just naturally looks like the guy every politician tries to look like.

Yeah bubu. Just what the democrats like as proven in all the past elections. A good looking well spoken stud.
Why don't we just elect a queen as our media approved puppet.


LOL< quite comical to make THAT a partisan issue.

McCain selected Sarah Palin as a running mate basically because she was a still young-ish, not-bad looking female, hoping to attract the horny middle-aged man vote (and some women)

are you saying that Obama chose Joe Biden because he's so sexy & pretty? LMAO
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 19
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 4:11:38 PM

Biden being picked as a VP candidate is a perfect example of the Pres. candidate protecting himself........... Who would shoot obama, seeing who was next in line?

Almost all presidential candidates have done the same thing now for decades.

Paul K


good theory Paul but by definition many would-be assassins are not playing with all their marbles , not really weighing who would be a better President ,and would it make much difference to them anyway if they are shot dead by Secret Service, or incarcerated for the rest of their lives?

do you think that the 4 successful Presidential assassins figured the VP would be better?

did Lee Harvey Oswald think:" yeah Johnson would be a better Prez so I'll pull the trigger?" also attempts were made on Reagan, at least plans have probably been made against almost every Prez ever, (but many were thwarted early on) I don't think they all thought " the VP would be better" I know there was an American guy planning to kill Nixon in Canada (Ottawa, thinking security might be looser) (but he was busted on the way)
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 20
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 4:41:14 PM
Yeah, I went to Snopes:http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

You're wrong. Individuals making over $200k a year, and couples making over $250k have to pay a capital gains tax of 3.8% of the PROFIT on the sale. There are even more loopholes than that though.

As they say on Snopes, "it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sale profits over a designated threshold amount."
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 21
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 4:56:25 PM

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.


So, Marco Rubio has the right to be president, just like any other "anchor baby" (as the right-wingers call them) born to foreign citizens in the United States. I thought that the Republicans were ready to deport all those foreigners, along with all their anchor babies. Now they are considering making one of those unwanted citizens the VP of the USA. They probably realized that they need to get some of the Hispanic vote. Guess what, the Hispanic voters are smarter than you think.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 22
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 5:01:56 PM
@ rpl55: Sigh. This "birther" nonsense does not want to go away, does it?

Maybe you "have seen no credible legal interpretation that defines "natural born citizen" as just "anybody born in the country", but I have: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Look it up and read it, here's your d*mn reference: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649. The rule is simple and it's actually older than the United States.

1. Has Biden ever publicly announced an intention not to run as VP, or is this pure rumor?

2. As for Mitt, he clearly needs someone that can take off his edge as a rich plutocrat and increase his appeal to undecided voters in the center. A VP that would pander to the Reps' base is a waste of effort, as anyone "right of Romney" will basically have no meaningful alternative to him.

EDIT: Halftime, if Bruce Willis had expressed the SLIGHTEST interest in running they would probably have badgered him into being on the ticket by now. Seriously, the candidates are largely amateur ham actors now, look how much Reagan is venerated after the fact, might as well cut to the chase and run actual actors.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 23
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 5:04:57 PM
It was a rumour I started.

It's not really going to happen. The big advantage of the incumbent is that he represents stability - changing running mates would be a bad idea. I did know that Biden has long wanted to be Secretary of State, and would have rather had that job than VP. I also know that Hillary will be stepping down, and has publicly said so. So I just indulged in some speculating.

edit: I always thought a Bruce Willis v Tom Hanks campaign would be a much better race. Or Clint Eastwood v Morgan Freeman. I wouldn't even care who won - I'd want the loser to be vice President like they did back in the old days.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 24
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 5:08:33 PM
I think it would be brilliant political theater to have Palin vs. Hillary, 2016.

EDIT: You can't run Morgan Freeman, that's a violation of the Establishment of Religion clause. He's G-d, you know. In fact, I don't think you can ever run anyone who has done voice-overs.

EDIT 2: Whoa, laws and the Constitution are supposed to make sense now? Good luck with THAT one. Have you ever observed laws being made? You know what a legislative committee is? A steak goes in one end and a sausage comes out the other.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 25
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 5:11:13 PM
I realize the law is that one has to be a 'natural born citizen' to run for Prez.. has anyone considered whether that law really makes any sense though?

The idea is the 'born' person will have greater loyalty to the country but that is dubious at best

many immigrants I have met are fiercely loyal to their new country .

Paul K are you not an immigrant to the US? do you think you are 'less loyal" to the US than any natural born citizen? I bet you are more loyal than at least some of them

by the same token obviously a natural born citizen CAN easily betray their country, see Aldrich Ames for example (CIA spy/traitor who sold out the US to the USSR for $$)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames

also "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, "Tokyo Rose" (US citizen Iva Toguri D’Aquino) , Aaron Burr, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, (spies for USSR) Robert Hanssen , a former FBI agent who spied for Soviets & Russia, Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood shooter), John Walker, Jr. (US navy comms officer who spied for USSR)

I'm sure there's many more examples
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 26
view profile
History
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 7:12:30 PM
has anyone considered whether that law really makes any sense though?


No, because even if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth amending the Constitution. Requiring presidents to be natural born citizens certainly isn't so irrational as to justify that. It's meant to assure they're devoted to this country's interests--to prevent a wolf from slipping into the fold. The fact there are always traitors is proof that citizenship can never absolutely guarantee loyalty, but it is a good start.

It's worth noting that Japan had made it law in the 1920's that Japanese retained their citizenship even when naturalized in other countries. That meant that many Japanese in the U.S. at the time of Pearl Harbor had dual citizenship. And a small percentage of them was more sympathetic to Japan than to the U.S. Divided loyalties come naturally when people have foreign ties. Too naturally to risk them in a president.

@slybandit:
I've read Wong Kim Ark. I've also read what the same Justice Gray said fourteen years earlier in Elk v. Wilkins. He got it right the first time--the simple fact of being born in the U.S. does not make a person subject to its jurisdiction, as the 14th Amendment requires for citizenship.

The Supreme Court said this in the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873:

"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."

I know it's not binding authority, since the Court was commenting rather than deciding this issue. But it shows that in a major 14th Amendment decision a year before Elk, the Court viewed the issue the same way. That supports the view that Wong Kim Ark was a bad call.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 27
VP
Posted: 4/26/2012 7:21:41 PM
I could be completely wrong on this....but I'm pretty sure Huntsman was governor of Utah. I'm guessing that means there's a pretty good chance he's a Mormon. It really doesn't mean anything to me, but the LDS stuff has dogged Romney in some circles. Putting another Mormon on the ticket would play into a lot of paranoia out there.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >