Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,215
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by AuH2ORepublican

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • AP Exclusive: Job hunt substantial part of Bayh's last year (in Senate)

    10/12/2016 3:52:06 AM PDT · 9 of 11
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    Sure sounds like a violation of Freedom of Speech to me. But then again, so do so many ideas coming out of candidates’ mouths nowadays.

  • US Chess Champ Won't Compete for World Title if it Means Wearing a Hijab

    10/06/2016 11:48:06 AM PDT · 42 of 72
    AuH2ORepublican to Mount Athos

    “Georgia was the second country in the world to have christianity as the official religion”

    After Armenia, right?

  • Designated Survivor (Cabinet Member Becomes President)

    10/01/2016 8:01:46 AM PDT · 94 of 95
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

    For your script to be picked up by a network, you’ll need to cast one of the Jonas brother ir eomething as the Speaker. : )

    As for Kiefer Sutherland appointing Cabinet officers and remaining as Acting President, that would be correct if he named a Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, etc., but didn’t submit the nomination to the Senate (or sent it with the understanding that the Senate wouldn’t confirm), which would permit the nominees to serve as Acting Secretary of State, etc. without becoming the proper officers, so Kiefer would remain as the highest ranking proper officer in the line of succession and thus remain Acting President.

  • Designated Survivor (Cabinet Member Becomes President)

    09/30/2016 7:28:45 AM PDT · 90 of 95
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

    “For example if the VP is dead and President in a coma, can section 4 of the 25th even be invoked (without the VP)? Would the only recourse be to impeach and remove the comatose President? Or does the succession act have a provision for that?”

    Article II says, inter alia, that the VP shall act as President in the case of “inability to discharge the powers” by the President, and empowers Congress to legislate as to who would act as President if neither the President and VP can discharge such powers. Such language would seem to give Congress leeway to declare a President to be disabled, which, of course, would be very dangerous and one of the reasons why Congress proposed the 25th Amendment. Given that the 25th Amendment came later and is more specific as to how a President’s “inability” is declared, I don’t think that Congress may rely on Article II to declare a President to be unable to discharge the powers of the office and instead the process set forth in the 25th Amendment must play itself out. Since Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides that the VP (along with a majority of Cabinet officers) has to sign on to any inability certification before it may be presented to Congress, some wooden literalist may claim that if there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency then the President never can be declared unable. However, the most reasonable reading of Section 4 is that the VP must sign on *if there is a VP*, and otherwise a majority of Cabinet officers (or of such other body that Congress designates by legislation) would suffice. Things not covered by the 25th Amendment would be filled in by Congress, since Article II still applies except where specifically preempted by the 25th Amendment. So if a majority of Cabinet officers declare the President unable, and there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the holder of the office next in line in the line-of-succession law would become Acting President. Of course, pursuant to Section 4, the President would get his power back if he communicated to Congress that he was able to exercise his powers, unless a majority of the Cabinet again claimed that he was unable, in which case Congress would decide the issue (with a 2/3 vote from each house required in order to declare the President unable).

    Of course, had the President nominated a VP prior to going into the coma or whatever it was that happened to him, then Congress could confirm his VP nominee and then there would be a VP that could participate in the Section 4 process, and the issue of how to treat a vacancy in the Vice Presidency would be moot.

    But what if there was no vacancy in the VP, but the VP was in a coma or something? That would be much murkier ground, since the 25th Amendment is silent on the subject of VP inability and Article II empowers Congress to legislate as to who would act as President in both the President and VP were unable, but not to declare the VP to be unable *in the absence of having the inability being needed to declare another officer to be Acting President*. That would create a quandary, but I think that ultimately the certification from a majority of Cabinet officers as to the President’s inability would be deemed sufficient if the VP was assumed to be disabled unless the VP objected to being deemed to be disabled (and, of course, objected to the President being declared unable).

    “To clarify if there is a permanent vacancy and someone below VP takes over they are they the President? That would make sense but the succession act seems to say they’d still only be Acting President.”

    The language of Article II (and of the line-of-succession law) speak of who will act as President, and in the case of temporary vacancies that is exactly what occurs. However, only a VP that becomes President truly can be said to be filling a permanent vacancy.

    If, say, the Secretary of the Treasury is next in line to act as President due to the death of the President and VP and vacancies in the offices above the Secretary of the Treasury in the line-of-succession law, the Secretary of the Treasury would be the Acting President, but not the President properly speaking, because he would serve not until the next election, but until an office higher than his in the line of succession was filled. For example, if the Secretary of the Treasury acting as President were to nominate a Secretary of State, and such nominee was confirmed by the Senate, then the new Secretary of State would become Acting President. (I’m not including hypotheticals involving the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate given that I don’t believe that such persons constitutionally may be in the line of succession.)

    And even if there was a permanent vacancy in the Presidency and the Vice Presidency and the first person in the line of succession (say, the Secretary of State) was the Acting President, it still would not result in such person being the President proper, given that (i) such Acting President could nominate someone else to serve as Secretary of State, and upon confirmation such new Secretary of State would become Acting President and (ii) Congress has the constitutional power to amend the line-of-succession law so that the Secretary of State no longer is first in line, which would make a different officer the new Acting President. While such actions are unlikely (and the latter certainly could be questioned in court), they certainly are possible, and thus an officer other than the VP will be a mere Acting President no matter what happens. Happily, this is consistent with the language of Article II that authorizes Congress to legislate as to which Officer shall “act” as President.

    Please note that some scholars believe that Congress could call a new presidential election if both the President and VP die, but I’m not touching that one with a ten-foot pole. : )

  • Designated Survivor (Cabinet Member Becomes President)

    09/29/2016 3:38:32 PM PDT · 84 of 95
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

    An Acting President (i.e., a person acting as President during a temporary vacancy, such as would occur if (i) the president is incapacitated as per the 25th Amendment or (ii) the presidential election gets thrown into the House and none of the candidates has received the vote of 26 state delegations by January 20) may not nominate a VP pursuant to Section 2 of the 25th Amendment. Only a proper President may do so. The 25th Amendment is very clear when it uses the terms “President” and “Acting President.”

    Assuming for the sake of argument that the Speaker of the House is an “Officer” eligible to be placed in the line of succession (which I do not believe is the case, irrespective of what Congress legislated at Harry Truman’s behest; similarly, James Madison, who pretty much wrote the damn Constitution, argued that the line of succession adopted by the First Congress, which included the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House (and no one else), was unconstitutional), then the new Speaker would supersede the Secretary of Dog Catching as Acting President from the moment of his election as Speaker. Of course, that would result in the paradox that Madison pointed out and that is still true today: Since the president can’t be a member of Congress pursuant to the Incompatibility Clause, then the Speaker would have to resign from Congress if he became Acting President, and since the Speaker must be a member of the House (irrespective of what some armchair scholars claim—the position of Speaker was based on the Speaker of the(British) House of Commons, who had to be, and always has been, a Member of Parliament), then such person would no longer hold the position (Speaker of the House) that allowed him to be Acting President in the first place. That is one (structural) reason why the Constitution should be interpreted to permit only Executive Branch officers from being in the line of succession. (There also is a textual reason why a legislative officer should not be permitted to be in the line of succession: Throughout Article II, which is where the line-of-succession clause is located, the term “Officer” refers to an “Officer of the United States,” a term that includes Executive Branch officers and Article III judges but not members of Congress.) So if the Constitution still means something, neither the Speaker of the House nor the President Pro Tem could act as President of the United States.

    Fortunately, an Acting President may nominate a new Secretary of State, who, upon confirmation by the Senate, would become the new Acting President until the President woke up from his coma.

  • New UPI Voter Polls: Trump Up in VA, FL, IA, OH, NC and PA

    09/27/2016 5:40:15 PM PDT · 102 of 123
    AuH2ORepublican to laplata

    You’re welcome.

  • New UPI Voter Polls: Trump Up in VA, FL, IA, OH, NC and PA

    09/27/2016 3:58:16 PM PDT · 70 of 123
    AuH2ORepublican to laplata

    “Kaine only beat Allen by 35,000 votes in 2012:

    United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012
    Turnout 66.4% (voting eligible)
    Nominee Tim Kaine George Allen
    Party Democratic Republican
    Popular vote 2,010,067 1,785,542
    Percentage 52.9% 47.0%”

    2,010,067 minus 1,785,542 equals 224,525. That was an even bigger victory margin for Kaine than Obama got in VA that year.

    However, RAT Senator Mark Warner barely won reelection against Republican Ed Gillespie in 2014 (winning by only 17,727 votes):

    Mark R. Warner Democratic 1,073,667 49.15%

    Ed W. Gillespie Republican 1,055,940 48.34%

  • Democrats for Governor on 2A: Increase gun control and ban firearms(New Hampsha)

    09/14/2016 4:07:59 PM PDT · 35 of 38
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief; campaignPete R-CT

    I think that Guinta should just go ahead and change his surname to Gunita (and his ethnicity to Dravidian, I guess), since that’s likelier than you ever spelling his name correctly. : )

    I’m quite concerned about NH-01. Guinta’s “ethical lapse” is a big nothingburger (he transferred money to his campaign account from a personal bank account that he shared with his father, and someone alleged—and Guinta denied—that the money deposited the bank account came from his dad, not him), but Guinta’s been hit on this issue for like two years now and it could cost him in that closely divided district. If Trump’s drag among college graduates and professionals is substantial, then Guinta’s road fo reelection will become even more uphill, even against a moonbat like Che-Porter.

    Lawrence definitely needs (i) money and (ii) a minor miracle to knock off Kuster.

  • Democrats for Governor on 2A: Increase gun control and ban firearms(New Hampsha)

    09/14/2016 2:41:13 PM PDT · 33 of 38
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; rktman; campaignPete R-CT; fieldmarshaldj; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief

    In NH-02, former state Representative Jim Lawrence won the GOP nomination. From what I recall from the prior time he ran (2014 I believe), he’s a conservative. And if he wins the upset in the Dem-leaning NH-02, he’d be the first black Republican to represent a New England state in Congress since Gary Franks of CT back in the 1990s.

    Also in New England, black Republican Randy Brock is running in what should be a very competitive race for Lt. Governor of Vermont.

  • Bishop Tobin: Tim Kaineís Abortion, Gay Views ĎClearly Contraryí to Catholic Teaching

    07/31/2016 7:46:59 AM PDT · 26 of 26
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Senator_Blutarski; Impy; Clintonfatigued; campaignPete R-CT

    The Jesuit priest that voted 100% pro-abortion in Congress (and was replaced by Barney Frank when Pope John Paul the Great ordered priests not to serve in secular elective office) was Robert Drinan.

  • Civil Beat Poll: GOPís Djou Up By 4 Points Over Democrat Takai in CD1 (Hawaii update)

    07/20/2016 3:55:59 PM PDT · 30 of 41
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; mrsmith; Fai Mao; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy

    Breaking news: Democrat Congressman Mark Takai has died of cancer.

    According to Hawaii law, the governor must schedule a jungle-primary-style special election, with no run-off even if the winner does not get a majority, for the remainder of the House term. That’s how Charles Djou was able to get elected to the House back in 2010 (the two strong Democrat candidates split the RAT vote).

    For the regular election to be held in November, there will be (normal) party primaries on August 13; filing closed on June 7, and eight candidates are running in the Democrat primary while only one candidate (businesswoman and retired Air Force Colonel Shirlene Ostrov: is running in the GOP primary.

    If all of those Democrats file to run in the special election, then the sole Republican might just be able to win with a plurality. However, it is unlikely that the RAT Governor of Hawaii will set the filing deadline for the special election for a date prior to the August 13 special primary (and, to be fair, there really isn’t enough time to hold the special election on August 13 even though it would save the state some money), so chances are that whichever Democrat wins the nomination for the regular election would be the only prominent Democrat running in the special election. It is also possible that more than one Republican may file to run in the special election, thus splitting the GOP vote and making an upset even less likely.

    So here’s hoping that the Governor Ige has a brain fart and sets a September special-election date and an early-August filing deadline so that there’s a Democrat clown car running in the special and Ostrov (or some other Republican) has a chance at winning the special.

  • What a Pence VP pick would mean for Indianaís race for governor

    07/17/2016 4:51:14 AM PDT · 23 of 24
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy

    Thanks for the info. I had no idea that she had strayed so far from Burton’s gold standard.

  • What a Pence VP pick would mean for Indianaís race for governor

    07/16/2016 9:34:56 PM PDT · 21 of 24
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; campaignPete R-CT; randita; yongin

    Thanks for the response. I honestly was asking what votes she had cast that made her worse than Rokita, and was not implying that I had analyzed her votes and agreed with them. I didn’t know (or had forgotten) that she had voted with the trannies, and he ACU rating in the low 70s (and 20 points lower than Rokita) proves that she must be less conservative than him on more than one issue.

    Of the three announced candidates, Rokita does sound like the best one.

  • What a Pence VP pick would mean for Indianaís race for governor

    07/16/2016 7:57:45 AM PDT · 15 of 24
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; campaignPete R-CT; randita

    Personally, I would prefer Stutzman because (i) he’s more conservative than the announced candidates while having as good of a shot at winning as do the others and (ii) he currently is not the nominee for another office, so it would be less disruptive to pick him (the other three then can be chosen to remain on the ballot for Lt. Gov. or Congress). But the replacement gubernatorial nominee will be selected by the 22 members of the state’s Republican Central Committee, and I doubt that someone who has not expressed an interest in running (like Stutzman) will be considered, much less selected.

    What votes has Brooks cast that make her worse than other IN GOP Representatives? I thought that she voted about the same as Young, Rokita and several others (maybe not Stutzman). I know that she’s no Dan Burton, but those were some big shoes to fill.

  • If Bill Clinton had a sex change operation and changed his name could he run as Hillary's VP?

    07/14/2016 9:25:01 PM PDT · 24 of 24
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    That’s correct, if we go by the text of the 22nd Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” So Bill Clinton can’t be elected president, but nothing in the amendment would prevent him from succeeding to the presidency. Someone elected president twice isn’t disqualified from being president, only from being elected president a third time (if being elected president twice disqualified one from being president, then Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama would have had to resign right after winning reelection).

    And since bein elected president twice is not a disqualification from the office of the presidency, then a two-term president similarly is not disqualified from serving as VP. The 12th Amendment clarifies that VPs must meet the same constitutional qualifications for office as presidents, but it doesn’t say that only persons *qualified to be elected* president may be elected VP.

    So Hillary could choose Bill as her runningmate (and Trump could choose George W. Bush, for that matter), but Hillary and Bill wouldn’t both be able to receive EVs from NY unless one of them moved to another state.

  • 'If Germany could vote, Hillary would win hands down'

    07/14/2016 9:08:10 PM PDT · 99 of 101
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    I would guess that Trump does better in the former East Germany because of his admiration of Putin and tough stance against Muslims.

  • This Conservative Insurgent Pulls Close in CO Senate Without Establishment Help

    07/01/2016 3:32:04 PM PDT · 18 of 20
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; MtnClimber; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale

    “A victory by Dylan Glenn would improve the quality of the U.S. Senate.”

    Yes, it would, and it would be shocking, particularly given that black conservative Republican Dylan Glenn, who lost relatively narrowly to Sanford Bishop in the competitive GA-02 in 2000 and lost a primary run-off to Lynn Westmoreland in safely Republican GA-08 in 2004, has retired from politics (I think that he’s a lobbyist now) and doesn’t even live in Colorado ....

    I think that you meant to say that if *Darryl* Glenn wins that it would improve the quality of the U.S. Senate. : p

    And I agree 100%. Darryl Glenn is a true, principled conservative, and we have not just his words to support the proposition, he has a record to prove it.

  • Congressional Candidate Claudia Tenney Takes on The Republican ĎEstablishmentí in New York

    06/28/2016 8:18:22 PM PDT · 8 of 14
    AuH2ORepublican to campaignPete R-CT; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued

    Claudia Tenney wins by almost 8% (she got around 42% in a three-person race). For some reason, AP wouldn’t call the race even after 99% ofprecincts were in and Tenney was up by 8%, but it finally called it for herwith 100% of the vote in.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/24/2016 11:32:59 AM PDT · 40 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Rome2000

    I wasn’t aware of that. Thank you.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/24/2016 11:31:47 AM PDT · 39 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Pelham; Impy

    He left Cuba as a child prior to the Missile Crisis. I think that most 19th century and early 20th century Russian immigrants to Cuba were Jewish, which would not be the case for my acquaintance (or the Senate candidate). But, as Impy posted earlier, the surname appears to be Bavarian, not Russian. Most Bavarians are Catholic, as were almost all European immigrants to the Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico in the 19th century, so that’s probably what happened.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/24/2016 9:48:36 AM PDT · 37 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    I know of another Beruff, also Cuban. The name sounds Russian to me.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/24/2016 8:00:26 AM PDT · 32 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; Clintonfatigued

    It seems as if the sole reason why Grayson married his girlfriend before the filing deadline was so that she could file with the Grayson name. She’ll still get trounced in the primary by state senator Darren Soto (who is the only Puerto Rican running in the multi-candidate primary in a seat in which Hispanics will be a near majority of the Democrat primary electorate).

    Impy, is your misspelling of Beruff’s surname intentional?

    There is a third Republican running, a (second) rich businessman named Wilcox, who will eat into Beruff’s likely vote pool. I would guess that the final result will be Rubio 75, Beruff 12, Wilcox 10, others 3.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/23/2016 6:25:57 PM PDT · 28 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued

    “What are Beruff’s chances of winning a runoff or forcing a primary?”

    I have no idea what you meant to say. Beriff doesn’t have to “for e a primary”; there already is a primary scheduled for September, whether Beruff stays in or not. And as for “winning a runoff,” that’s not possible, because Florida doesn’t have primary runoffs even if the winner doesn’t get to 50%+1.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/23/2016 6:20:25 PM PDT · 27 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; GeronL

    Florida got rid of its run-offs long ago.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/23/2016 12:19:38 PM PDT · 22 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy

    Beruff won’t betray us on immigration—because he won’t win the general if he were to buy the nomination. He is not the sort of disciplined candidate that we need in order to win a U.S. Senate race in FL.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/22/2016 1:44:18 PM PDT · 8 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj

    DeSantis is running for reelection, and it looks as though they’re clearing the field for him.

    Hopefully DeSantis can try again for the Senate in 2018, a non-presidential year in which the chances of a non-incumbent conservative Republican winning are higher. In the meantime, he can continue to compile the most conservative voting record of any Florida Republican.

  • Florida's David Jolly Running for Re-election to the House

    06/22/2016 7:26:30 AM PDT · 7 of 40
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj

    Marco Rubio just announced that he’s running for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Congressman Ron DeSantis (the most conservative member of the FL House delegation, but who was an underdog for the nomination) is expected to drop out; hopefully he’ll file to run for reelection in his GOP-leaning—but not comfortably GOP anymore, thanks to that stupid lawsuit and court decision—district.

  • Early results: Holding cruising to 2d district win (NC)

    06/21/2016 12:15:17 PM PDT · 20 of 22
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    BTW, those moonbats at Daily Kos finally got around to computing 2012 presidential data (the one thing for which they are any good) for the new NC congressional districts, including for the redrawn NC-13 (the most marginal district in the state). We already knew that McCain had gotten 51.2% in 2008 within the lines of the redrawn NC-13, and that Romney must have done a couple of points better in 2012, but we now have the actual Romney numbers: 53.4%.

    Here are the GOP presidential numbers for each redrawn CD for both 2008 and 2012:

    District 2012 2008

    NC-01 31.4% 32.2%

    NC-02 56.5% 54.3%

    NC-03 59.0% 56.8%

    NC-04 34.6% 33.2%

    NC-05 57.2% 54.2%

    NC-06 56.4% 53.8%

    NC-07 56.4% 54.6%

    NC-08 55.2% 53.9%

    NC-09 55.8% 54.0%

    NC-10 59.1% 57.4%

    NC-11 60.4% 57.1%

    NC-12 31.6% 31.3%

    NC-13 53.4% 51.2%

  • Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez Claim Runoff Spots In California US Senate Race

    06/11/2016 9:50:25 AM PDT · 18 of 75
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; GeronL

    If elected to the Senate, Kamala Harris would be on the road to the White House; if elected to the Senate, Loretta Sanchez would never be able to go any further. Just for that, I’d vote for Sanchez (and then take a long shower).

  • House Passes Puerto Rico Debt Relief Bill

    06/11/2016 5:50:21 AM PDT · 39 of 39
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    All of those things are true, but Karl Rove ran ads calling it a bailout, and you know how trusted and admired Rove is here at FR ....

    The truth is that the Democrats wanted to turn the bill into a bailout, but GOP Congressmen Bishop, Duffy, Labrador and, ultimately, Ryan, did not permit it to happen. Bernie Sanders is furious with the bill, which does not permit the feds to pay off Puerto Rico’s debt nor, in the alternative, screw over bondholders (any debt restructuring would need to be approved by 5 of 7 members of the federal Oversight Board (4 of whom would be nominated by Republicans) and by 2/3 of bondholders.

  • House Passes Puerto Rico Debt Relief Bill

    06/10/2016 10:53:55 AM PDT · 37 of 39
    AuH2ORepublican to ConservativeMind

    What he means is the Puerto Rico municipalities (political subdivisions, public agencies, etc.) are not covered by Chapter 9, whereas municipalities of the 50 states are covered by Chapter 9.

    Also, while it certainly is true that U.S. states cannot *declare bankruptcy* pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Illinois is seeking to belie the assertion that a state cannot “go bankrupt” (i.e., become insolvent). Those Democrat legislative supermajorities in Illinois are making sure that the state government doesn’t get derailed from its certain path to insolvency.

  • Hope for multiple sclerosis cure as 23 seriously ill patients recover after 'breakthrough' stem cell

    06/10/2016 10:47:00 AM PDT · 43 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to MayflowerMadam

    The article speaks of the patient’s bone-marrow stem cells being transferred to other parts of the body, so they must be speaking of adult stem cells. Besides, given that the word “embryonic” was not included in bold and all-caps, it was obvious that these were adult stem cells. Also, given that this stem-cells treatment actually works, it must have been adult stem cells, since embryonic stem cells have never been found to cure anything despite the gazillions of public dollars spent on such research.

  • House Passes Puerto Rico Debt Relief Bill

    06/10/2016 10:29:03 AM PDT · 36 of 39
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    The Government of Puerto Rico employs so many people that we’ve crossed the point of no return when it comes to democratically elected leaders being able to cut the size of government, given that such a large percentage of voters either work for the government or have a close relative that works for the government. Thus, it will take someone that does not have to answer to the voters of Puerto Rico to reduce the size of government to a reasonable level.

    The same thing happened to the Dominion of Newfoundland (which was a separate British Commonwealth realm, not a part of Canada, back then) in the 1930s, when the King dissolved the Newfoundland Parliament (at such Parliament’s own request) and appointed direct administrators; the main differences between what the King did and what Congress is doing here are that Puerto Rico will retain its legislature (although the federal Oversight Board can veto spending measures that exceed the new, lower budget that will be imposed by the Oversight Board) and that the United States will not pay off Puerto Rico’s public debt (whereas the UK bailed out the Newfoundland government).

    It is an embarrassment to the Puerto Rico electorate that this measure had to be adopted, but that does not make it any less necessary. Hopefully the government elected in November will take this as an opportunity to cut spending to reasonable levels and not force the Oversight Board to make the cuts itself.

  • Early results: Holding cruising to 2d district win (NC)

    06/07/2016 7:14:57 PM PDT · 13 of 22
    AuH2ORepublican to PraiseTheLord

    You mean the district that is numbered the same as Holding’s old district; the new NC-13 is on the other side of the state.

  • Donald Trump endorses Renee Ellmers

    06/05/2016 11:08:15 PM PDT · 38 of 43
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; ConservativeTeen; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; StoneWall Brigade; randita

    NC won’t be having run-offs this year for any office, thanks to the stupid court decision striking down its perfectly constitutional 2012 congressional districts, which forced the state to postpone the congressional primaries. So moderate Republican Ellmers could win tbe nomination with under 40%. We need conservatives in the redrawn NC-02 (which I believe includes as many voters from Holding’s old NC-13 as from Ellmers’s old NC-02) to vote for the conservative Holding so as to defeat the moderate Elmers. Brannon, who, unlike Holding, doesn’t have a record to match his conservative talking points, isn’t going to win the nomination, so even if one were to prefer him to Holding (which I don’t) one still should vote for Holding so as to prevent a split of tbe conservative vote lyielding an Ellmers victory.

  • The Next Big Star from Florida? Byron Donalds - Surprise Endorsement by Naples News

    05/20/2016 8:54:03 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    AuH2ORepublican to Amish; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Perdogg; ...

    This just in: Congressman Curt Clawson (FL-19) is retiring, and Byron Donalds is rumored to be interested in running for the seat again after falling short in the 2012 primary. Former Congressman Porter Goss’s son (who also lost in the 2012 primary) already announced that he’s running.

    Byron Donalds is the real deal, and I hope that he is able to coalesce conservatives so as to win the primary.

  • Gender-neutral baby names are all the rage for 2015


    05/10/2016 5:15:06 AM PDT · 47 of 48
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy

    Bentivolio is not an anti-Semite like Amash, but he’s still a Paulbot reindeer breeder with no clue about what conservatism stands for. Sure, he’s more conservative than Trump, but that’s a low bar.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/30/2016 10:38:54 AM PDT · 51 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    The 12th Amendment provides that, in cases of contingent VP elections, a majority of the whole number of Senators is required for election. That means 51 Senators, not 50 Senators plus one lame-duck VP.

    As for the fact that you can’t fathom no one getting 270 EVs in the 2016 elections because Gary Johnson is highly unlikely to carry a state, you obviously have less imagination than I do. : p

    BTW, the reason to adopt Section 3 legislation now is not because it is likely that we’ll have a contingent presidential or VP election in which a candidate dies after the Electoral College has met, but because in the unlikely event that such calamity does occur it would be catastrophic if no law is in place to deal with the situation.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 10:08:48 PM PDT · 34 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to BlackElk

    What amendment are you reading that would allow the House to elect a president voting by member instead of by state delegation?

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 2:54:00 PM PDT · 28 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to dangus

    When Senator Strom Thurmond ran for reelection in 1984, he was 81 years old (and would turn 82 a month after Election Day). His Democrat opponent, 44-year-old Melvin Purvis, made Thurmond’s age an issue during the campaign, saying that South Carolina deserved a Senator that would be able to serve out the six-year term.

    Well, Thurmond ended up serving out not only that term, but two additional terms, retiring from the Senate at age 100. Purvis, on the other hand, died of a heart attack less than two years after losing the 1984 election. Funny how that works.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 2:46:04 PM PDT · 27 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to Bubba_Leroy


  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 12:44:25 PM PDT · 24 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to kennedy

    “I hate to imagine who Clinton or Sanders will pick as a running mate (it will almost certainly be a young, far left-wing Hispanic, preferably gay).”

    You forgot transgendered.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 12:43:13 PM PDT · 23 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to PhilCollins; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Perdogg

    Even if the House still is controlled by the GOP after this November’s elections (which is the likeliest scenario), you must remember that when there is a contingent presidential election (one in which the House has to choose from among the three top finishers in electoral votes), the House votes by state delegation (with California, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming each getting one vote), and it takes 26 state delegations to elect a president. So if the GOP holds on to the House but only has a majority in, say, 25 state delegations (with the Dems controlling 23 and 2 being evenly split between the two parties, then the GOP Representatives would not be able to elect the Republican as president. You also have to consider the fact that there likely would be a third candidate apart from the R and D nominees (unless the R and D candidates tied at 269, or else neither one got to 270 because of abstentions). In other words, it’s more complicated than just which party controls the House.

    And this law would apply if one of the presidential candidates among whom the House would be deciding dies after the Electoral College has met. Even if the GOP controls 26+ state delegations in the House, if the GOP nominee is dead then the GOP House either would (i) elect the dead man (in which case the VP would become president on January 20, and if no VP candidate got 270 EVs then the Senate—perhaps controlled by the Democrats—would elect the VP-cum-President) or (ii) be forced to elect the Democrat or the third-party candidate that received EVs because one of the houses of Congress (*cough* the Senate *cough cough*) refused to count EVs cast for the dead Republican pursuant to the 1872 precedent involving the death of Horace Greeley. By adopting the proposed law, it would permit the GOP House to elect a Republican president if the GOP presidential nominee is dead (either the dead man’s runningmate, or else a replacement candidate selected by the dead Republican’s presidential electors in a revote); without the law, it would not be able to elect a Republican.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 12:25:35 PM PDT · 22 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to Bubba_Leroy


  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 11:36:41 AM PDT · 18 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to Bubba_Leroy; dangus

    “Hell, if there is a nuclear war, all that will survive will be the Clintons and the cockroaches, until the Clintons eat the cockroaches.”

    So they’re cannibals? : )

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 11:35:39 AM PDT · 17 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to dangus

    That’s true, six years and change is more than “a little” older. But Trump would be just a few months older than Reagan was in 1980, and Clinton a few months younger than Reagan was.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 11:34:28 AM PDT · 15 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to kennedy

    It is not altogether clear that Congress would follow its (stupid) 1872 precedent that electoral votes cast for a dead person (in that case, Horace Greeley) would not be counted, and thus that the dead person would not be considered by the House.

    And if you read the law proposed by Professor Kalt (it is very short, and included at the end of the third linked posting that I listed in this thread’s post #2), Congress would not be able to determine who the substitute candidate would be. If Hillary died, her runningmate would be the candidate that the House would be able to consider, and if her runningmate was dead as well, then the Hillary electors would vote again to replace Hillary with someone else. I guess that, in theory, both Hillary and her runningmate could die and the Democrat electors (all of whom will be liberal Democrat hacks) cunningly could replace Hillary with a RINO that could win 26 state delegations in the House), but by far the likeliest result would be that they would replace Hillary with John Kerry or Elizabeth Warren or some other liberal Democrat.

    And if dead people can’t be considered by the House, and Trump is the one that dies, then the House would have to decide between Hillary and Sanders. Wouldn’t you rather have the House be able to vote for Trump’s runningmate, or a replacement that the Trump presidential electors selected?

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 11:24:14 AM PDT · 12 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to kennedy

    You are correct, it would take two unlikely things to happen for the proposed law to become necessary. But if they *did* happen, it would be in everyone’s best interest for the law already to be in place; otherwise, we would have Congress scrambling to deal with the situation in an extremely tense environment in which half the country would be saying that Congress was trying to steal the election.

  • Donít kill the candidate

    04/29/2016 11:18:32 AM PDT · 10 of 53
    AuH2ORepublican to dangus

    Actually, in one of the posts Professor Kalt notes that Trump and Sanders will be a little older on Election Day than Reagan was on Election Day 1980, while Hillary would be less than a year younger than Reagan was. So, yes, one of them could die between the date on which the Electoral College meets and the day on which Congress would count the electoral votes (and, if no one had a majority, that the House would elect the president and the Senate the VP).

    Frankly, while I support the adoption of legislation under Section 4 of the 20th Amendment to deal with the possibility of such an untimely death, I think that an easier, and more important, congressional statute would move the date on which the Electoral College meets in each state from its current (federally imposed) date in early December to January 2, the day before the new congressional term commences. That way, if a presidential or VP candidate dies between Election Day and January 2, the presidential electors can vote for a replacement prior to the electoral votes being delivered to Congress. This would largely eliminate the risk of a dead person being one of the candidates to be considered by the House for the presidency (or by the Senate for the vice presidency). Perhaps even more importantly, such change in meeting date largely would eliminate the possibility that the outright winner of the presidential election is a dead man, which either would result in the VP-elect becoming president on January 20 or, if Congress followed its (stupid) 1872 precedent that electoral votes cast for a dead person (in that case, Horace Greeley) would not be counted, perhaps permitting the House to elect the loser as the new president.