[QUOTE=David John Hill Jr;130165]Comments from elsewhere?[/QUOTE]

Only that it would appear that we need a "Miscellaneous Politics" subforum, in addition to the "Misc. Maths".

indeed
 

I have a tendency to vote republican, partly as one of my greats grandfather
was also father to one of the cofounders of the party out in chicago.

That's a wonderful reason for voting Republican. Thanks for doing your civic duty of researching the candidates and choosing the candidate you think is best.

[quote=tallguy;130102]If the winning candidate murders their spouse immediately following the election (and would you really blame Hillary, after all? :ermm:), what other mechanism is there to react to the situation?[/quote]I think that murder clearly is in the category of "high crimes" ([URL]http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec4.html[/URL]) for which a president (after taking office) may be impeached. But before taking office, AFAIK the president-elect has no special legal immunity because of that status, and could be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted just as anyone else could be.

The Straight Dope has a long page titled "Who has the power to arrest the president?" ([URL]http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mprezarrest.htm[/URL]) that covers not merely the title question (which "has an easy answer"), but also the issues of presidential immunity, impeachment, prosecution, pardons, double jeopardy, foreign prosecution, extradition, rendition and deportation. It ends with:[quote]"In sum, whether the president can be prosecuted prior to impeachment remains controversial. After impeachment, the president can definitely be prosecuted in the U.S. Even in another country, the president could be prosecuted for acts that weren't part of his job or violated international criminal law."[/quote]

As I wrote (and feel no need to retract) a mere two months ago, "I think we're having primary elections way too early (too early for the good of the country, that is)".

Let's look forward [I]almost two-and-a-half times that far[/I] into a possible future projected by Karl Rove:

"How to Win in a Knife Fight -- The Democratic race could well come down to the first contested convention in years. Lessons on how to prevail."

[URL]http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586[/URL]

Five simple rules, plus explanations.

Sorry if this 0ut order but.....
 

Has that nice Mr Mbagwe won the latest
"election" in Zimbabwe or not?

[QUOTE=davieddy;130470]Has that nice Mr Mbagwe won the latest
"election" in Zimbabwe or not?[/QUOTE]

You mean the right honorable Mr. Mugabe? Last I heard they were still furiously at work at the govt printing office, printing up ballots with his named marked on them to make up the election-day shortfall. They actually had to stop printing money for the day in order to do this, so this also serves as an inflation-fighting measure - a win-win for the Zimbabwean people. The perspicacity and humility of their dear leader never ceases to amaze.

Now that the field has been narrowed I've made up my choice. I am favoring John McCain, mostly because of his straight talk style and his statements on the Middle-East.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;130202]The Straight Dope has a long page titled "Who has the power to arrest the president?" ([URL]http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mprezarrest.htm[/URL]) that covers not merely the title question (which "has an easy answer"), but also the issues of presidential immunity, impeachment, prosecution, pardons, double jeopardy, foreign prosecution, extradition, rendition and deportation. It ends with:[/QUOTE]


Perhaps a more interesting question:

What happens if one of the candidates dies from a heart attack the day
before the election? The day of the election? etc.

[QUOTE=Prime95;127274]The 3 or 4 times I've voted for a third party candidate I wanted to waste my vote. My goal was to send a message to my party: "If you want my vote back, nominate a more palatable candidate next time".

IMO, the only way voters can send a wake-up message to their party is to let the other party win an election - a short-term loss for a hoped-for long-term gain.[/QUOTE]

I believe this line of thinking is based on an often made wrong assumption. There is no "you versus the party". There only exists a "you as part of the party". Whatever your level of affinity with politics and that party may be. If the candidate that is brought forward is not your first choice or does not represent your main line of thinking at all, as long as it is the candidate that is closest to your preference he/she deserves your vote. If you are not satisfied with that candidate the only one to blame is you, not the other members and affiliated, for not more actively participating and endorsing another candidate or policy.

Democracy and freedom are precious fruits of hard work and defending that require all of us to invest heavily in studying the issues of debate and working out common strategies at the sacrifice of our personal preferences. If one doesn't want to vote for any candidate, it should be because none of them is any closer than the others and in that case one should vote blanc.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;130443]As I wrote (and feel no need to retract) a mere two months ago, "I think we're having primary elections way too early (too early for the good of the country, that is)".

Let's look forward [I]almost two-and-a-half times that far[/I] into a possible future projected by Karl Rove:

"How to Win in a Knife Fight -- The Democratic race could well come down to the first contested convention in years. Lessons on how to prevail."

[URL]http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586[/URL]

Five simple rules, plus explanations.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone remember or know the source of the quote:

"When Democrats arrange a firing squad, they stand in a circle"???