Carpet bagging,what are your thoughts on it?

[jamesrage]

I'm going to speak slowly here.

THEN DONT ELECT THEM. WORK FOR THEIR OPPONENTS. DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO.

Let me speak slowly to you.

PEOPLE WHO DO NOT GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT POLITICS WOULD VOTE FOR A MONKEY IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO.POLITICIANS ARE OPPORTUNIST SCUMBAGS AND WOULD EXPLOIT PEOPLE JUST TO GET IN A OFFICE THEY CAN EXPLOIT,THEY WILL LIE CEHAT AND STEAL TO GET IN OFFICE IF IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL TO DO SO.We need laws to ensure that scumbags can not exploit people.

I don't support the idea of the government telling me who I can and cant choose as my representative for senator, congressman, state senator, mayor, or dog catcher. I believe that if someone is a worthy candidate, they will get elected. If not, they wont

Would you humor me and explain why it constitutionaly illegal for a foreigner to run for president and what was the reason for doing so?

But don't try to get the government to pass another law that limits what you can or cant do. How does that comport with your supposed "conservative" principles? Or are you a Bushconservative, only conservative when it comes to guns, gays, abortion, and the war?

Being a conservative does not mean I should be for a oil companies charging what ever the hell they want when they are a practically a monopoly,Nor does it mean I should be in favor of employers hiring illegal aliens,nor does it mean I should favor of companies outsourcing and Nor does being a conservative mean I should favor drug companies charging a $100 for a bottle of pills that cost pennies on the dollar to make.

I favor laws that help eliminate corruption in politics.Some rat running to represent a area they know nothing about is unethical.

 

[RightinNYC]

Let me speak slowly to you.

PEOPLE WHO DO NOT GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT POLITICS WOULD VOTE FOR A MONKEY IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO.POLITICIANS ARE OPPORTUNIST SCUMBAGS AND WOULD EXPLOIT PEOPLE JUST TO GET IN A OFFICE THEY CAN EXPLOIT,THEY WILL LIE CEHAT AND STEAL TO GET IN OFFICE IF IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL TO DO SO.We need laws to ensure that scumbags can not exploit people.

Then we'd have a monkey in office. That's how a representative democracy works. Don't like it? Then try to change our form of government or feel free to leave.

Would you humor me and explain why it constitutionaly illegal for a foreigner to run for president and what was the reason for doing so?

The founders expressly put it in the Constitution because they were nervous that British loyalists would gain control and vote the King as President, putting us back under British rule. Which isnt exactly a concern anymore.

Being a conservative does not mean I should be for a oil companies charging what ever the hell they want when they are a practically a monopoly,Nor does it mean I should be in favor of employers hiring illegal aliens,nor does it mean I should favor of companies outsourcing and Nor does being a conservative mean I should favor drug companies charging a $100 for a bottle of pills that cost pennies on the dollar to make.

What does any of that have to do with anything? You favor the government telling you who you can and cannot vote for. That means you're not a conservative in my book.

I favor laws that help eliminate corruption in politics.Some rat running to represent a area they know nothing about is unethical.

So did you like McCain/Feingold? And as ive said 30 or 40 times, if its really THAT unethical, people wont vote for them. If they do, then they get what they wanted.

 

[jamesrage]

The founders expressly put it in the Constitution because they were nervous that British loyalists would gain control and vote the King as President, putting us back under British rule. Which isnt exactly a concern anymore.

I thought such a provision was put in the constitution during WWI or WWII, not during the fouding of our country?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
The founders expressly put it in the Constitution because they were nervous that British loyalists would gain control and vote the King as President, putting us back under British rule. Which isnt exactly a concern anymore

So you would approve voting for a someone completely foreign to the US?

You favor the government telling you who you can and cannot vote for. That means you're not a conservative in my book.

Let us all be glad that your book doesn't count.

 

[RightinNYC]

I thought such a provision was put in the constitution during WWI or WWII, not during the fouding of our country?

Nope.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Ratified July, 1788.

 

[RightinNYC]

So you would approve voting for a someone completely foreign to the US?

Yes. Why is it any different? You don't think that Arnold or Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granhold have the nations best interests at heart? That they wouldn't know how to run the country, simply because they were born elsewhere?

How about this: Let's say President George H.W. Bush and Barbara happened to be on vacation in the Carribean the week of July 6th, 1946. George W. Bush would have been born outside of the country. Say that history operates the exact same way up until 2000. Bush is running for President against Gore, but in order to do so, we'd have to amend the constitution. You'd prefer Gore to amending the constitution? You think that Bush's ability to govern would have been lessened at all because he was born outside the country?

Or let's say someone who was born in another country but their parents immigrated here to flee the Nazis when they were just a baby. They've lived in the US for 50 of their 53 years on earth. Are they somehow less fit?

Let us all be glad that your book doesn't count.

Not yet.:lol:

 

[jamesrage]

Nope.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5.



Ratified July, 1788.

My mistake.So we will go back to this statement.

"The founders expressly put it in the Constitution because they were nervous that British loyalists would gain control and vote the King as President, putting us back under British rule. Which isnt exactly a concern anymore."

I think it is a big concern.There should be some strict residency requirements for immigrints to run for any office.

What does any of that have to do with anything?

Just becasue I am a conservative does not mean I should favor insanity over sanity.

You favor the government telling you who you can and cannot vote for. That means you're not a conservative in my book.

I would say allowing and or being in favor of curruption makes you not a conservative.We have a democracy.A democracy can be just as easily a downfall as it is blessing,therefore we should ensure that it stays a blessing by placing restrictions as to who can run for political office so that we do not end up slitting our own throats.I do not look at this as telling someone who they can and can't vote for.I look at it as saying who can and can't run for office.There is all kinds of restrictions and what eligibility requirements must be met for runninig for political office. Saying that you have to live here in order to run for office here is no different than any other requirement.

So did you like McCain/Feingold? And as ive said 30 or 40 times, if its really THAT unethical, people wont vote for them. If they do, then they get what they wanted.

People would vote for a rock if someone swore up and down that it promissed them gold or if they saw it tv in a music video.

Yes. Why is it any different? You don't think that Arnold or Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granhold have the nations best interests at heart? That they wouldn't know how to run the country, simply because they were born elsewhere?

How about this: Let's say President George H.W. Bush and Barbara happened to be on vacation in the Carribean the week of July 6th, 1946. George W. Bush would have been born outside of the country. Say that history operates the exact same way up until 2000. Bush is running for President against Gore, but in order to do so, we'd have to amend the constitution. You'd prefer Gore to amending the constitution? You think that Bush's ability to govern would have been lessened at all because he was born outside the country?

Or let's say someone who was born in another country but their parents immigrated here to flee the Nazis when they were just a baby. They've lived in the US for 50 of their 53 years on earth. Are they somehow less fit?

We are not talking about someone who lived in a particular area for 20 or 30 years or for most of their life.We are talking about some conartist running for office in a district they do not live in.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think it is a big concern.There should be some strict residency requirements for immigrints to run for any office.

Immigrants to the country or immigrants to the area? The problem is, in the US, there isn't that much to differentiate many places. In my hometown in upstate NY, I live near the border of my congressional district. If I moved 15 miles, I would be in a different district. Are the issues really that different from district to district? The lines are drawn arbitrarily as it is.

So if we accept that in many, many cases, there really isn't that big of a difference, what about on the state level? If I am a fantastic legislator in Wyoming, and I end up moving to Montana, living there for a year or two, and then running for governor, am I a carpet bagger? Is it really that hard to believe that I might still be very very good at my job?

Just becasue I am a conservative does not mean I should favor insanity over sanity.

But it does mean that you should favor personal choice of our elected representatives over the government telling you who you can have as your officials.

I would say allowing and or being in favor of curruption makes you not a conservative.We have a democracy.A democracy can be just as easily a downfall as it is blessing,therefore we should ensure that it stays a blessing by placing restrictions as to who can run for political office so that we do not end up slitting our own throats.I do not look at this as telling someone who they can and can't vote for.I look at it as saying who can and can't run for office.There is all kinds of restrictions and what eligibility requirements must be met for runninig for political office. Saying that you have to live here in order to run for office here is no different than any other requirement.

We have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And if you're only talking about extending residency requirements, then that's a different thing altogether. That's a state issue, but I think you'd find it hard to convince states to change it as well, because most people are content with the law as it is.

People would vote for a rock if someone swore up and down that it promissed them gold or if they saw it tv in a music video.

Yes. But that's why we have the form of government we have. Checks and balances and all that. But you didn't answer, do you support the McCain/Feingold campaign reform act?

We are not talking about someone who lived in a particular area for 20 or 30 years or for most of their life.We are talking about some conartist running for office in a district they do not live in.

How do you determine the length of time? States have already set those laws. They did so by voting on them. If they wanted them to be where they are, who are you to tell them they're wrong?

 

[jamesrage]

Immigrants to the country or immigrants to the area?

Immigrints to that area.

The problem is, in the US, there isn't that much to differentiate many places. In my hometown in upstate NY, I live near the border of my congressional district. If I moved 15 miles, I would be in a different district. Are the issues really that different from district to district? The lines are drawn arbitrarily as it is.

Alot of times there can be huge differences.If you lived a mostly conservative small town would you want someone from Sanfrancisco running for mayor?

So if we accept that in many, many cases, there really isn't that big of a difference, what about on the state level? If I am a fantastic legislator in Wyoming, and I end up moving to Montana, living there for a year or two, and then running for governor, am I a carpet bagger?

Yes you would be a carpet bagger if you move to another state live there for a year jsut so you can run for a office there.

Is it really that hard to believe that I might still be very very good at my job?

If you good then why couldn't you run in your home state?What did you do to **** those people to make them not want to vote for you?

But it does mean that you should favor personal choice of our elected representatives over the government telling you who you can have as your officials.

There is nothing wrong with standards for who can and can't run for office.

We have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And if you're only talking about extending residency requirements, then that's a different thing altogether. That's a state issue, but I think you'd find it hard to convince states to change it as well, because most people are content with the law as it is.

Most people are proably content with the law because they are not aware
of it or nor are have the been burn.With the way the law is some schmuck from Sanfransicko can run for mayor of a small town and turn it into a gay resort.

Yes. But that's why we have the form of government we have. Checks and balances and all that. But you didn't answer, do you support the McCain/Feingold campaign reform act?

Soem of it sounds good some of it sounds bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold

* A wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to national political parties -- unlimited donations nominally made for non-campaign purposes, but potentially used to influence federal elections.
* A prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, with a few limited exceptions.
* Federal candidates and officeholders prohibited from accepting or spending soft money.
* A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
* Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year.
* A political party spending money in a general election campaign must choose between making coordinated expenditures on behalf of its candidate, or independent expenditures on behalf of its candidate, but not both. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
* Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
* Hard money legal limits raised:
o Limit for individual contributions per candidate per election increased from $1,000 to $2,000.
o Limit for individual contributions to National Party Committees increased from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.
o Limit for individual contributions to state and local party committees increased from $5,000 to $10,000

Other provisions (incomplete):

* Fundraising on federal property is prohibited.

How do you determine the length of time?

Prefereably 20-30 years would be good.

States have already set those laws.

wow only a few years.

They did so by voting on them. If they wanted them to be where they are, who are you to tell them they're wrong?

People at one time were also for unlimited individual contributions to political parties,where those who spoke up agaist it wrong?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

RightatNYU,

Yes. Why is it any different?

The US should be represented by US citizens point blank.

 

[RightinNYC]

Alot of times there can be huge differences.If you lived a mostly conservative small town would you want someone from Sanfrancisco running for mayor?

If I lived in a mostly conservative small town, the person from san fran (assuming they were liberal), probably wouldnt win. If they would, it would be because the people in my town believed he was the best candidate. That's fair.

Yes you would be a carpet bagger if you move to another state live there for a year jsut so you can run for a office there.

If you good then why couldn't you run in your home state?What did you do to **** those people to make them not want to vote for you?

Say that my ailing mother is dying so I move to be closer to her to take care of her. I am suddenly unworthy of being a candidate?

There is nothing wrong with standards for who can and can't run for office.

You're right. And all 50 states have set them, and they all disagree with you.

Most people are proably content with the law because they are not aware
of it or nor are have the been burn.With the way the law is some schmuck from Sanfransicko can run for mayor of a small town and turn it into a gay resort.

:roll:

Soem of it sounds good some of it sounds bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold

* A wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to national political parties -- unlimited donations nominally made for non-campaign purposes, but potentially used to influence federal elections.
* A prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, with a few limited exceptions.
* Federal candidates and officeholders prohibited from accepting or spending soft money.
* A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
* Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year.
* A political party spending money in a general election campaign must choose between making coordinated expenditures on behalf of its candidate, or independent expenditures on behalf of its candidate, but not both. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
* Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
* Hard money legal limits raised:
o Limit for individual contributions per candidate per election increased from $1,000 to $2,000.
o Limit for individual contributions to National Party Committees increased from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.
o Limit for individual contributions to state and local party committees increased from $5,000 to $10,000

Other provisions (incomplete):

* Fundraising on federal property is prohibited.

McCain/Feingold is a shitstorm that took away the rights of people to support candidates they liked, forcing them to start 527 groups which lowered the level of discourse significantly. I don't think you can find 10 conservatives who support it.

Prefereably 20-30 years would be good.

Then change the law.

People at one time were also for unlimited individual contributions to political parties,where those who spoke up agaist it wrong?

Yes. Why do you ask?

 

[RightinNYC]

RightatNYU,

The US should be represented by US citizens point blank.

Uh, those people ARE US citizens.

In fact, they had to do more to become citizens than you or I did. We got it by birth, they had to earn it.

 

[jamesrage]

If I lived in a mostly conservative small town, the person from san fran (assuming they were liberal), probably wouldnt win. If they would, it would be because the people in my town believed he was the best candidate. That's fair.

Beleaving someone is a good canidate and someone using your gullability to initiate their liberal agenda is two different things.

Say that my ailing mother is dying so I move to be closer to her to take care of her. I am suddenly unworthy of being a candidate?

I think it takes more than a year or two to actually know the values of the people in that area and to grow an attachment to that area.

McCain/Feingold is a shitstorm that took away the rights of people to support candidates they liked, forcing them to start 527 groups which lowered the level of discourse significantly. I don't think you can find 10 conservatives who support it.

Some of it is good some of it is bad.

Then change the law.

I'll write my elected officials to do so.

 

[RightinNYC]

Beleaving someone is a good canidate and someone using your gullability to initiate their liberal agenda is two different things.

I think it takes more than a year or two to actually know the values of the people in that area and to grow an attachment to that area.

Some of it is good some of it is bad.

I'll write my elected officials to do so.

If they're stupid enough to vote for them, they deserve what they get.

I'm reminded of a quote from some crazy liberal back in the day:

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
-Ronald Reagan

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

McCain Feingold is horseshit it took the power of the average citizen to support his canidate and put it in the hands of rich liberal contributors to moveon.org like George Soros.

 

[jamesrage]

McCain Feingold is horseshit it took the power of the average citizen to support his canidate and put it in the hands of rich liberal contributors to moveon.org like George Soros.

Not all of it was bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold

* A wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to national political parties
* A prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, with a few limited exceptions.
* Federal candidates and officeholders prohibited from accepting or spending soft money.
* A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
* Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year.