Rick Perry

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who would you vote for if it were Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama?

  • Barack Obama

  • Rick Perry

  • neither


Results are only viewable after voting.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I agree that there is some truth to that.

But I think people overlook the huge importance of those whom the President chooses to conduct important policy for the USA. Geithner, Holder and the whole Goldman Sachs group are good examples of the wrong people for the job.

Fern

Following is a link to an article from Commondreams pointing out Obama's record in appointing corporatists and getting rid of progressives.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/18-3

Any of these Republicans would be much worse, but it's a good article on Obama.

Sample for the 'do not click links' crowd:

4. Cass Sunstein: Widely thought to be the president’s most powerful legal adviser. Sunstein defended and may have advised Obama on his breach of his 2008 promise (as senator) to filibuster any new law that awarded amnesty to the telecoms that illegally spied on Americans. This was Obama’s first major reversal in the 2008 presidential campaign: he had previously defended the integrity of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act against the secret encroachment of the National Security Agency (NSA).

At that moment, Obama changed from an accuser to a conditional apologist for the surveillance of Americans: the secret policy advocated by Dick Cheney, approved by President Bush, executed by NSA Director Michael Hayden, and supplied with a rationale by Cheney’s legal counsel David Addington. In his awkward public defense of the switch, Obama suggested that scrutiny of telecom records and their uses by the inspectors general in the relevant agencies and departments should be enough to restore the rule of law.

When it comes to national security policy, Sunstein is a particularly strong example of Bush-Obama continuity. Though sometimes identified as a liberal, from early on he defended the expansion of the national security state under Cheney’s Office of the Vice President, and he praised the firm restraint with which the Ashcroft Justice Department shouldered its responsibilities. “By historical standards,” he wrote in the fall of 2004, “the Bush administration has acted with considerable restraint and with commendable respect for political liberty. It has not attempted to restrict speech or the democratic process in any way. The much-reviled and poorly understood Patriot Act, at least as administered, has done little to restrict civil liberty as it stood before its enactment.” This seems to have become Obama’s view.

Charity toward the framers of the Patriot Act has, in the Obama administration, been accompanied by a consistent refusal to initiate or support legal action against the “torture lawyers.” Sunstein described the Bush Justice Department memos by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, which defended the use of the water torture and other extreme methods, in words that stopped short of legal condemnation: "It's egregiously bad. It's very low level, it's very weak, embarrassingly weak, just short of reckless." Bad lawyering: a professional fault but not an actionable offense.

The Obama policy of declining to hold any high official or even CIA interrogators accountable for violations of the law by the preceding administration would likely not have survived opposition by Sunstein. A promise not to prosecute, however, has been implicit in the findings by the Obama Justice Department -- a promise that was made explicit by Leon Panetta in February 2009 when he had just been named President Obama’s new director of the CIA.

As head of the president’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, with an office in the White House, Sunstein adjudicates government policy on issues of worker and consumer safety; yet his title suggests a claim of authority on issues such as the data-mining of information about American citizens and the government’s deployment of a state secrets privilege. He deserves wider attention, too, for his 2008 proposal that the government “cognitively infiltrate” discussion groups on-line and in neighborhoods, paying covert agents to monitor and, if possible, discredit lines of argument which the government judges to be extreme or misleading.
 
Last edited:

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Perry is a patently fake persona, a spineless corporate tool douchebag, even more so than Obama. They can both suck a fat one.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Who else is there?

Wait, who else that CC's would approve of?

Just because he is who YOU believe a "voting block" is voting for, doesn't make it true. At this stage of the race, hardly no one thought Obama would win the primaries.

Each *individual* is going to vote for who that individual wants to vote for.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
Just because he is who YOU believe a "voting block" is voting for, doesn't make it true. At this stage of the race, hardly no one thought Obama would win the primaries.

Each *individual* is going to vote for who that individual wants to vote for.

That's true, and I hope it is so. Rick Perry seems to fall in line with a (R) candidate though, so forgive me for thinking he'll do well, even if he is slow now. The fact the media seems to go after him, helps me believe he'll get it.

Seriously, what (R) candidates are worth voting for? I'd vote for Romney, and I'd vote Paul, no one else, any one else the (R) fields I will vote for Obama. Romney would take a lot of thinking too...
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
Perry is an opportunist with no morals. He doesn't care about America; he wants fame, power, and money and will whore out to whoever can get him there.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I was stunned by this article the other day - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Perry believes, among many other stupid ideas, that the Constitution should be amended to permit a 2/3 majority of Congress to overrule the Supreme Court. This change would fundamentally destroy the concept of a federal government consisting of three co-equal branches. I find it just amazing that a person potentially capable of winning the Republican nomination could believe something so misguided.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,806
8,396
136
I was stunned by this article the other day - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Perry believes, among many other stupid ideas, that the Constitution should be amended to permit a 2/3 majority of Congress to overrule the Supreme Court. This change would fundamentally destroy the concept of a federal government consisting of three co-equal branches. I find it just amazing that a person potentially capable of winning the Republican nomination could believe something so misguided.

In principle, I agree with your logic.

However, in reality, by virtue of Bush stacking the deck over at the USSC, the repubs have already breached the idea of three equal branches of gov't. The USSC is already corrupted by the Corporate owned repubs.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I was stunned by this article the other day - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Perry believes, among many other stupid ideas, that the Constitution should be amended to permit a 2/3 majority of Congress to overrule the Supreme Court. This change would fundamentally destroy the concept of a federal government consisting of three co-equal branches. I find it just amazing that a person potentially capable of winning the Republican nomination could believe something so misguided.

I didn't read your link, going only by what you say.

But I see it a little differently than you. Looks to me like what he is suggesting is some kind of super short-cut to amending the Constitution. Seems to me if the SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, presently the only recourse is to amend the Constitution. The 2/3 majority proposal effectively gets you there without all the hassle of the current amendment process.

Also seems to me that you'd need a amendment to even enact his proposal. Otherwise, the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional and we be back where we started. :)

Fern
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
In principle, I agree with your logic.

However, in reality, by virtue of Bush stacking the deck over at the USSC, the repubs have already breached the idea of three equal branches of gov't. The USSC is already corrupted by the Corporate owned repubs.

I am not a fan of our current Court, but you're mistaken in my opinion. The Constitution gives the President the right to appoint justices, and as long as they are adequately qualified they should normally be approved by Congress. Alito and Roberts are most certainly qualified to serve. The makeup of the Court obviously changes over time, and I don't believe this offends the concept of three equal branches of government.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I didn't read your link, going only by what you say.

But I see it a little differently than you. Looks to me like what he is suggesting is some kind of super short-cut to amending the Constitution. Seems to me if the SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, presently the only recourse is to amend the Constitution. The 2/3 majority proposal effectively gets you there without all the hassle of the current amendment process.

Also seems to me that you'd need a amendment to even enact his proposal. Otherwise, the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional and we be back where we started. :)

Fern

If Congress believes an issue warrants a Constitutional amendment, that process already exists. The problem with what Perry is proposing is that the Court's job is to apply precedent to facts in an effort to determine an outcome that, in the opinion of the Court, complies with the Constitution. Frequently these rulings are based on concepts which are at the most basic core concepts of the Constitution, including due process and equal protection. Obviously Congress is not going to amend the Constitution to remove due process rights, but Perry's proposal permits Congress to simply override the Court based on nothing but politics. It's s stupid idea and reveals him as a complete ignoramus.

Yes, enacting this ludicrous idea would require a Constitutional amendment, one that would make the Founding Fathers spin in their graves.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,547
1,127
126
I didn't read your link, going only by what you say.

But I see it a little differently than you. Looks to me like what he is suggesting is some kind of super short-cut to amending the Constitution. Seems to me if the SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, presently the only recourse is to amend the Constitution. The 2/3 majority proposal effectively gets you there without all the hassle of the current amendment process.

Also seems to me that you'd need a amendment to even enact his proposal. Otherwise, the SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional and we be back where we started. :)

Fern

Umm you don't need amendments to get a bill up to snuff with the constitution. Congress can fix the bill and make it meet constitutional standards. This happens regularly and the ends of the bill are more or less the same.

See the Gun Free School Zone act of 1990. It was passed and signed into law, then challenged and declared unconstitutional. Congress made slight changes to the law repassed it and it was then constitutional and still had the same effect of the original law.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,547
1,127
126
I am not a fan of our current Court, but you're mistaken in my opinion. The Constitution gives the President the right to appoint justices, and as long as they are adequately qualified they should normally be approved by Congress. Alito and Roberts are most certainly qualified to serve. The makeup of the Court obviously changes over time, and I don't believe this offends the concept of three equal branches of government.

Not only that most of the cases the partisanship just isn't there. Even then, there have been some strange bedfellows the past couple years and the 5-4 decisions go both ways.