Talk:2016 presidential election

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rubio Citizenship/Eligibility

He is clearly eligible under both the 14th amendment and the 2011 finding of the Congressional Research Service. Under the arguments frequently given by people claiming Rubio to be ineligible(namely, that his parents were not US citizens when he was born), this would also mean that the first 7 Presidents of the United States were also ineligible as either they or their parents were British subjects at the time of their birth. Martin Van Buren being the first President to actually be born a US citizen by the standards laid out by these detractors. Fnarrow 00:55, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

The Constitution has been interpreted to "grandfather" people who were citizens of the various states/colonies prior to the Constitution being ratified. Wschact 06:54, 28 May 2013 (EDT)

Where is Mike Huckabee?

He should be included in this list. A socially conservative protestant who lowers taxes.

John Kasich

Surely Ohio governor (and National Review favorite) John Kasich belongs on a list like this.[1] Whoever is at the top of the ticket, Ohio is a must-win state, which makes Kasich a logical choice for veep. PeterKa 21:54, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

Rubio popularity in Florida

I think his popularity in Florida and his ability to win the state are exaggerated here. His approval ratings in Florida have never been high. I can't say I know a single person here, on either side of the aisle, who approves of his record. It may give him leverage, but not much. Also, polls show that he doesn't have the support of Hispanic or Cuban groups in the state. ScottH35 18:00, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

"Rubio will probably pull out of the primaries on the eve of New Hampshire and endorse Jeb Bush in the hopes that Bush will pick his as V.P."

Not possible. "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..." (Constitution of the United States, Amendment XII). IsabellW 20:45, 19 April 2015 (EDT)

Great point! But Cheney simply changed his state of voter registration from Texas to Wyoming to resolve that same objection back in 2000. Rubio could do likewise, although that would be politically difficult for him as the senator of Florida.--Andy Schlafly 21:09, 19 April 2015 (EDT)
It seems like it would be more than politically difficult. The Constitution, of course, only mentions that a senator must be an inhabitant of the state at the time of their selection(later election). However, it doesn't seem to be clear if a senator could change their state of residency while in office. A fair amount of googling doesn't seem to resolve the question and I can't find anything to answer it. I wonder if it has ever happened? I know of plenty of congressmen who have lived outside their state while retaining residency there, but none of actual switched residency. I imagine there would be a court case about it were he to do so. ScottH35 15:54, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
I am guessing that people may have been less likely to move between states back when the U.S. Constitution was written.
It would also be interesting to know how cultural/economic differences have widened/narrowed over time between states/regions of the USA on various matters. On the one hand radio/TV/internet/automobile/interstate highway/national franchises would make things more homogeneous in the USA (of course the internet and cable TV causes "ideological cocooning" too), while the culture war post 1960s has created tensions within various parts of the USA.
And since political ideologies have economic/social consequences, many people are "voting with their feet" and leaving liberal states in order to better earn income or have a better place to raise their family. Conservative 16:15, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Actually, I think I've always read this part of the Constitution wrong. It seems to say that the electors cannot vote for both a president and VP from their state. If Bush ran with Rubio as VP, the Florida electors would not be able to vote for that ticket. But that would only be a problem if Bush had won fewer that 299 electoral votes. If he won more, the Florida electors could vote for someone else as VP and Rubio would still have a majority. Of course they'd never chance that. IsabellW 16:01, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Scott Walker

"The two-term Republican governor of Wisconsin is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage -- and recently called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision ruling same sex unions legal in all 50 states," according to ABC News. The linked article is a detailed recent profile and interview. PeterKa 14:57, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

I read the article. Walker's support of a pie-in-the-sky constitutional amendment is for cosmetic purposes. It's obvious he's not going to speak out against the homosexual agenda or issue any order to block enforcement of [Obergefell]]. This article in Politico is more informative about Walker's weakness on the issue: "Walker goes mum on same-sex marriage." [2]

See also Candidates on homosexuality

No links to their positions on actual issues that matter? IsabellW 13:48, 1 August 2015 (EDT)

Pros and Cons

These don't add up. Are these good things about each candidate or what will likely get them votes? It is interesting to note involvement in Iraq war is a con for Rice. I guess everyone has come around to that now--Scatach (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

On the contrary, Jeb Bush seems to be the only one who stumbled into ambivalence about the Iraq War. The rise of ISIS showed Bush and Rumsfeld's prescience in wanting to keep troops there and showed Obama's elitist dismissiveness of the critical region. VargasMilan (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Of course, it was a bad decision to completely withdraw troops in 2011.But to be fair, the Islamic State would not exist in the first place if the U.S. would not have invaded the country to begin with. It is hardly elitist for Obama to have made that decision though, considering the vast majority of the American people had grown tired of "war".--Scatach (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Those soldiers were there to wipe out terrorists. It's no accident that they came back in the same place. Removing all the troops wasn't just a bad decision, it made Donald Rumsfeld, to name one, very angry that Obama dismissed good military sense that would have cost a minimum of casualties like the troops kept in Germany after World War II. It was elitist to think the coalition troops weren't "authentic" enough to play a role in Iraq's emergence as a free nation. VargasMilan (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Donald Rumsfeld's feelings do not matter. I understand your sentiment however. I would be more upset the U.S. is not doing much of anything to combat the Islamic State right now then make it solely about Obama--Scatach (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (EDT)