Conquer Club

It's a possibility. whith what's-his-face in brain surgery, the Democrats are trying to sound like there's no chance of it, but I highly doubt that he's as well as it seems. What's your opinion, Americans? (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

I don't think there are any american politics, only smearing and throwing your own shit at your "opponents" in the hope that it'll stick.

happysadfun wrote:don't try to debate on American polotics

I'm sorry...I dont play polo.

I would like to have for this Democratic South Dakotan Senator to resign. Then the Republican Governor of South Dakota will pick a Republican to take the seat. Then the Senate will be 50Democrats to 50Republicans. Then Chenney will probably be the tie-breaking vote a lot which is good for 2 reasons: 1. He will vote Republican. 2. It will keep him away from hunting so he won't shoot anybody. Having a Democratic House and Republican Senate will force them to make more moderate compromises, which makes me happy because I am a moderate.

It's an absolute definite possibility. Should he declare (or be declared by the governor) to be unable to carry out his duties as a Senator, it would fall to the South Dakota governor to name the replacement. There are no requirements in SD that the replacement be a member of the same political party. Seeing as the SD governor is a Republican, it doesn't take a political junkie to guess what party the replacement would be from. That would make it 50-50 in the Senate with Cheney breaking any ties.

Don't hold your breath for this to happen any time soon.

I t would take a 2/3 vote in the senate to expel him, and I haven't heard of a governer being able to declare a Senator incapacitaed.

Unless he dies or 25 Democrats vote to replace him with a Republican, there will still be a two seat lead for the Dems

happysadfun wrote:(hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

I'd like to declare that as racism based on the precedent set by the "Do you hate the scottish/irish/welsh" thread.

I think Americans should be the one to refrain from debating, we're too close to the institution to treat it with objectivity.

A few reports have come out stating that as long as he remains alive, the republicans are going to give him ample time to recover, if it all possible.


--Andy

happysadfun wrote:(hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

Probably the rest of the world will stop debating American politics when Americans stop interfering with the rest of the world's!

vtmarik wrote:I'd like to declare that as racism based on the precedent set by the "Do you hate the scottish/irish/welsh" thread.

What happened to that thread? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I seem to remember insulting the Welsh, but I've no idea what response I got...

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

Yes, because its more likely to disagree with happysadfun.

reverend_kyle wrote:Yes, because its more likely to disagree with happysadfun.

LOL...like the majority of america these days.

wolf_man wrote:I t would take a 2/3 vote in the senate to expel him, and I haven't heard of a governer being able to declare a Senator incapacitaed.

Unless he dies or 25 Democrats vote to replace him with a Republican, there will still be a two seat lead for the Dems

We're not talking about expelling. We're talking about whether or not his seat is considered "vacant." If Gov. Rounds decides that Johnson's incapacitation has resulted in a vacancy, he can appoint a replacement under South Dakota law. Would Johnson's seat be considered a "vacancy"? Who the hell knows. Probably will be decided by judges.

i doubt it will personally, but you never know with south dakota...

According to what I've heard, South Dakota law has no provision for declaring a Senator incapacitated. So for there to be a vaccancy, he has to resign, die, or be expelled.

s.xkitten wrote:i doubt it will personally, but you never know with south dakota...

Meh, North Dakota's the 1 you have to worry about. Good for nothing but cold weather and always in the shadow of South. It's only a matter of time before they go crazy and start a quazi-civil war.

aoccrding to the latest reports, his recovery is going as scheduled, so he's probably going to be fine.

Also, if they replace him with a republican, the government will be right leaning, since the houses will be deadlocked, and we'll have a conservative jusiciary and executive. If he comes back the president will be forced to be more moderate since the senate and house aren't going to agree with him.

My general opinion: Hats off to the english parliament, they did it first and they did it right. Get rid of the harsh libel laws and funny wigs and ceremonies and you have a pretty efficient government (once you acutally write down the rules)

wolf_man wrote:According to what I've heard, South Dakota law has no provision for declaring a Senator incapacitated. So for there to be a vaccancy, he has to resign, die, or be expelled.

He can, however, declare it to be "vacant." And if he does, all hell is going to break loose. I can hardly wait.

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

I'm saying that most of you don't know as much about american polotics as you do your own respective countries. I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

happysadfun wrote: I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

I'd say it's a great deal ruder to invade a country you've never lived in. Nevertheless, I'm sure many Americans are now debating Iraqi politics, such as they are, despite never having lived there.

For god's sake - this is an international forum, and politics have been international for a long time. Find someplace else if you don't want us aliens butting in.

And it's "politics", not polotics...

happysadfun wrote:I'm saying that most of you don't know as much about american polotics as you do your own respective countries. I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

not to be stuck up and annoying, but you'd be surprised how much people know about other legal systems, a lot of Americans are relatively int he dark about their consitution and amendments, whcih is very unfortunate.

well, I think that it is good to have a balence, this will be a wake-up call to the republicans in office that they cannot do anything they want...

ttocs wrote:well, I think that it is good to have a balence, this will be a wake-up call to the republicans in office that they cannot do anything they want...

I think it's obvious that the Republicans never were able to do "anything they wanted." Otherwise, the estate tax would have been repealed, an anti-abortion bill would have passed and we'd be drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coast of Florida. I'm sure there are a lot more examples but those were the first to come to mind.

happysadfun wrote:

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

I'm saying that most of you don't know as much about american polotics as you do your own respective countries. I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

If ignorance is really your problem then make the disclaimer regarding ignorance, as I've no time for your jingoistic generalisations.

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote:

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

I'm saying that most of you don't know as much about american polotics as you do your own respective countries. I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

If ignorance is really your problem then make the disclaimer regarding ignorance, as I've no time for your jingoistic generalisations.

OK, how is this ignorance: You do not live in America. What you "know" about America comes from your media, be it positive or negative. You can debate your own polotics, and form opinions on every action of your country's leader(s), if you so desire. You shouldn't form opinions on every little action of other nations' leaders, seeing as you do not live there, chances are that you never will, you only know what your media tells you about another country, and what you research from biased sources, all countries and sources and media is biased, all across the face of the earth. Make opinions about the laws and regulations of your country, and discredit the country you are fighting against. But don't make such statements about countries you don't know, and don't just get one of those prefabricated "I hate America because they are protecting their country and their people by making a war wihich I condemn because it is war and I hate war because I am a liberal and think that world peace is actually possible and that war is a violation of human rights" opinions. Those are absolute bull and you are completely ignoring the fact that people in other countries are a lot like you.