Found a video discussing Americans Elect:
http://videosift.com/video/Americans-Elect-Group-Challenges-U-S-Presidential-Primary

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'd be happy to check out Americans Elect web content if they didn't require me to register or give them my email address. Lame and shady.

VideoSift is therefore lame and shady as well?


Yes!

Found a video discussing Americans Elect:
http://videosift.com/video/Americans-Elect-Group-Challenges-U-S-Presidential-Primary

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'd be happy to check out Americans Elect web content if they didn't require me to register or give them my email address. Lame and shady.


VideoSift is therefore lame and shady as well?

Found a video discussing Americans Elect:
http://videosift.com/video/Americans-Elect-Group-Challenges-U-S-Presidential-Primary

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'd be happy to check out Americans Elect web content if they didn't require me to register or give them my email address. Lame and shady.

Finally I found a video to sift about this topic.
http://videosift.com/video/Americans-Elect-Group-Challenges-U-S-Presidential-Primary

I've actually been pondering doing this so I can vote in the Republican presidential primary, especially since there likely won't be a Democratic primary I care about in 2012.

I haven't gone looking at election law though. As I recall Ohio passed some laws to make it harder for people to do crossover primary voting.

IMO, we should replace the primary/general election process with instant run-off voting.

I also think we should ditch the electoral college, and go straight to popular vote, so politicians will have to worry about their popularity in all 50 states, not just the big swing states like Ohio and Florida.

It's my understanding that the cause of corn subsidies is that the single largest corn producing state, Iowa, also has the first presidential primary. Any candidate against corn subsidies (corn ethanol among them) is weeded out before the rest of the nation has a say.

Why the hell do we do it that way? What reason could there be to give a few states such disproportionate power in the primaries? And in the general election why do we hold on to a system originally designed to give slave owners disproportionate power?

>> ^rougy:

^ You are lying out your ass.
There is nothing that says this had to be a "bi-partisan" bill.


First things first, I gave my honest opinion. You may think I'm wrong, or just simply disagree with me, but I said what I really believe.

As for the bill being "bipartisan", I'm not sure what you mean. Only Dennis Kucinich was talking about single payer in the Presidential primary. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all had plans that left private insurance at the heart of their reforms. None of them proposed a public option as strong as Grayson's bill that would allow everyone to be able to buy into Medicare. None of them really even proposed a plan that regulates the private insurers as much as this bill will.

Democrats are honestly a center-right party. I'm on board for trying to pull them left so that they become at least a center-left party, but we're not there today.

I think that we got a pretty good bill, considering the kind of timid centrists we had at the heart of our party, and we'll have plenty of opportunity to improve the bill over the course of the next decade. We might even get a public option before most of this stuff comes into effect in 2014.

I for one expect that the public option will be a big topic in the 2010 and 2012 elections, especially in the Democratic Senate primaries, and hopefully in the 2012 presidential campaign as well.

I'm going to offend some people here but I have to.

This guy has it all, pro choice and anti 2nd amendment.

Just because I support the 2nd amendment does not make me a religious conservative. I support the constitution, what does that make me?

And know I wont explain it to you naysayers out there, this guy is just the same as the other guy if not worse. He is "A peace loving decoy ready for retaliation." (-Dirty harry gorillaz).

He says he is pro gun, yet he supports the ban in Chicago, and in the District of Columbia even though they struck it down. Yet it is still illegal to own any automatic or semi auto gun? That's every gun except revolvers and lever actions and pump shot guns. Not to mention the class 3 weapons, that are classified assault. That usually means any weapon with a "bayonet lug", recoil suppressors, or heat plating (commonly seen on shotguns particularly the Spas series.)

http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1118

"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun

4 James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5 Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7 See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8 John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9 Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10 See supra note 6.
11 About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12 See supra note 5.
13 As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14 On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16 On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17 On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18 Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19 See supra note 4. " Quoted from a (I Know absolutely conservative site ).

http://www.gop.com/images/research/062608Research2.pdf (this is a PDF) - its hard to find stuff that isn't blatantly republican.

All i am saying is do a little digging on this. I don't want warmongering republican or a lair democrat for president.

I have know problem with commonsense law, but don't lie about your record. I support background checks and the tests needed to get a CCW.

Get this, in some states all you need is hunters education can get a CCW.

This argument has nothing to do with pro choice or pro life in which case I am indifferent.

Saying that if Hillary had never met Bill Clinton she likely wouldn't be where she is now isn't sexist, it's obvious. Having a democratic ex-president endorse you is worth a huge boost in both the 2000 democratic senate primary in New York and the current presidential primary. It's like saying George W Bush never would have been president if his father hadn't been president (duh).

They couldn't even come up with ONE example of sexism coming from the democratic party or the Obama campaign. They just went with one thing that one independent commentator said that wasn't even sexist. Florida and Michigan were stripped of their representation at the democratic convention because they (against the rules) decided to have their primaries before super tuesday to inflate their own influence. Now I think it's a silly double standard to let Iowa and New Hampshire do it without letting other states do it, but that argument has NOTHING to do with sexism. And even if Florida and Michigan counted, Hillary would still have fewer delegates than Obama.

No, I didn't get the headline from the news, but thanks for the compliment. I meant it to be provocative, so I'm glad it got your panties bunched
34 is way the heck larger than 25. 34/25 in any election is a LARGE margin.

We all know this isn't the end of the primaries, so don't assume I'm retarded enough to call it so. But it was a large victory for these 2 and will influence later primaries like it has in every election.

As far as they say, every candidate is Christian and openly so. Hillary and Obama, for example, regularly speak in churches to congregations.

Evidence that the Iowa caucus is a decent predictor of the presidential primary winner:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucus-vs-new-hampshire-primary-which-is-the-better-predictor/

Still I hope it's not Huck this year. He can't compete with Obama.

WTF!! Do any of these Republicans realize how insane they have become?? THe top candidate for the Presidential Primary (yet-to-announce) is saying Cuba is bad because mental institution used shock therapy??

Can anyone explain to him that Gitmo is IN CUBA?! He is implying Castro is a bad guy for wrongful imprisonment and torture? What the hell does that make Bush?

At least the Cuban film maker LIVED and was released after a few years. Sadly, as horrific a concept as this is.. I'd welcome shock therapy over what is done to US-held detainees. We are going from one dry-drunk, ex-coke addict.. to another.

“a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and head. The exact cause of death was ‘undetermined’ although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.”
An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” covered in the autopsies were attributed to “arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease” (heart attack). Persons under extreme stress and pain may have heart attacks as a result of the circumstances of their detainments.

The Department of Defense released the autopsy reports in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace.

One of forty-four U.S. military autopsy reports reads as follows: “Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq.”

Sources:

American Civil Liberties Website, October 24, 2005
Title: “US Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq”

Tom Dispatch.com, March 5, 2006
Title: “Tracing the Trail of Torture: Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to Iraq”
Author: Dahr Jamail

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/