Paul didn't do himself any favors by not defending himself on the isolationist comment. I really wish he would have responded to that and explained his position in detail. I think most would find it to be somewhere between isolationist and wanting to instigate WWIII like rubio, bush and clinton seem to want. I don't get why he just ignored it. He's defended himself on that in the past. As for the trump tpp thing, that was great. for anyone who didn't already think he was a massive blowhard how could you not after that? I mean he's going on and on about how terrible this tpp deal is and how it doesn't even address china's currency manipulation like he read the whole thing. ooops. sorry ... has nothing to do with china dude.
I think there is some obscure constitutional prohibition on the Pres and the VP being from the same state.
yes and no. its actually pretty interesting. There is no prohibition on having the two from the same state so a Rubio/Bush ticket is possible. But a possible (rare) issue could occur with the electoral college. The electoral college casts votes for President & VP separately. There is an obscure law that the electoral college can not vote for a President and V.P. both from their home state. So if Florida picked Rubio for President they wouldn't be allowed to pick Bush for V.P. Almost every year that wouldn't even matter. Florida would just pick Rubio and not pick a V.P. As long as the election is not extremely close it wouldn't matter Rubio/Bush would both win. Obama could've gotten away with an Illinois V.P. for example. The only time it would get tricky if the election was extremely close like in 2000. In that instance there is an outside chance you could have a President from one party and a V.P. from the other party. And in 2000 it almost happened. Cheney was actually registered as a Texas voter but in the months leading up to his V.P. nod he switched back to Wyoming where he originally represented in anticipation of this exact issue. Had he not done that, Texas' would've had to not vote for Cheney for V.P. and we could've ended up with a Bush/Lieberman White House lol here is where I got the information, but I basically summed it all up for you anyway http://www.politifact.com/punditfac.../president-vice-president-same-state-allowed/
Ted Cruz is out...he says we should only bring over Christian Syrian refugees Is he familiar with the first amendment?
The First Amendment was adopted over 200 years ago. The world has drastically changed since then. There are quite a few things created back then that don't make that much sense anymore - the Electoral College, for instance. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to make some changes that reflect the world we live in rather than the world 200+ years ago.
What about the second amendment then? The world has drastically changed since muskets...no way a militia can take on DRONES
That too but then the government would have to make sure that criminals don't have a way to get weapons either. For some reason, I find it hard to believe that the government can do that.
We make changes all the time. We've been doing this for the entire history of the USA. The fact that the First Amendment is called the First Amendment is a clear representation of that fact, as is the Bill of Rights. There's no such thing as being true to the original values of the Constitution as laid out by the founding fathers because it was not true to itself at the time it was written and those same politicians squabbled pretty endlessly about what to add in after the fact. This is the primary flaw in Original Intent as it relates to the Constitution. The only Original Intent that was clearly demonstrated was that the Constitution itself would be amendable and changeable in other ways (Bill of Rights) almost from the moment it was produced. That's what has happened over and over again throughout the years. This at least partly explains why constitutional freedoms change so much from era to era and why some groups are specifically excluded at times depending on the prejudices of the day. Slaves had no rights despite being natural born at the time the Constitution was written. Japanese Americans had less rights during WWII despite being natural born citizens. Mexican Americans were thrown out of the country in waves between 1910 and 1960 despite being natural born citizens. We really should be moving away from this trend instead of towards it. If Germans had been turned away from the US borders in the 1840-1860 period for being socialists the Civil War might well have ended in a draw, since German-American immigrants were key to keeping Missouri in the Union. We wouldn't have had Dwight D. Eisenhower to lead the US forces in WWII and to insure that Germany was well integrated back into the fold in the 50's, which was a key dynamic in the West winning the Cold War.
Of course they are amendments, but we're going to punish 99 percent of Muslims because the 1% are sociopaths and alter the first amendment? Right
If someone can't legally get a weapon, there is always a black market for one to be purchased. Sadly, nothing will ever stop morons from obtaining a weapon.
I am not aware that Ted Cruz is proposing amending the Constitution. He is only ignoring it, or more accurately proposing something he knows is unconsitutional to make political points. Funny how he himself is an immigrant, btw. Ftr I have read some of your concerns about increasing muslim influence in the political and social spheres and acknowledge there is merit to some ot it. Just not sure how we should go about addressing those concerns.
There has to be some better way than to just say no people from those countries, though. I have a friend who had a relative immigrate here from Nazi Germany before WWII. He joined the US Army and served in intelligence in Germany, working as a translator and using his knowledge of especially the Berlin area. Not that he was a huge player. But I am sure he made himself useful to the war effort. The point makes itself, i hope.
Dr. Jekyll is at it again.. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/ben-carson-rabid-dogs-refugees/index.html Of course his analogy was "taken out of context" by the evil media. I'll be glad when his 15mins are over..
Ted Cruz's family would never have been legally allowed in the country under the rules he proposes and he'd be living in a room with 18 other people waiting for the INS to beat down the door and deport him.
Not saying that Carson is analogous to Hitler in any way but people probably said the same things about the crazy little corporal before he finally swept to power in an era of politically polarized instability. We are one bad economic crisis away from having some really bloody things happen in this country.
Lol, this is like when people say "hey, don't take this the wrong way" or "not trying to be a dick here" and then saying something that can be taken no other way than "wrong" whilst sounding like a complete dick. Hey, I don't mean to make a Hitler analogy here, but he's kind of like Hitler. _
