Replies

You said — “You just implied Obama is a crook. The problem here is that you don’t understand, or refuse to understand, what’s going on (if I give you the benefit of the doubt and you’re trying to be intellectually honest). Obama admitted that he is a native citizen. He admitted that his father was british. Native is not natural born.

Well, I may think he’s a crook, but I can’t prove it (in regards to this issue...) :-)

—

And — “The mechanism is not deficient. The problem here is people like yourself not understanding or comprehending the issue.”

If we’re having this conversation (which we are) — and if Obama has gone through the election and won the popular vote by a large margin, and if Obama has succeeded on being elected per the Electoral College, and if he gets sworn in at his inauguration — then — the “facts” of what is happening shows that the vetting process is deficient.

We simply would not be talking right now if it were sufficient to make it so that no one could be President if they are not qualified. Where Obama is at right now proves the process is deficient.

—

And then you were saying — “No. Stop putting words into Obama’s mouth. He did not say that. Native is not natural born. They are two different words, ok? Natural is not native. Native is not natural. Obama did not ever say natural born that I am aware of. Nor did he even imply it. That is your misrepresentation. Seriously, get that straight. Obama is, at best, a NATIVE citizen. If you say that again, please provide a reference where Obama clearly states that he is a NATURAL born citizen.”

I use the terminology of natural born. But, as you indicate the “devil is in the details” and that would require more “sorting out” to figure out what exactly is such a distinction — legally speaking. And even going into all that still means that the process is deficient, because — once again — we wouldn’t even be having such conversations — if — the vetting process took into account all these things that we’re talking about. There are only a set of qualifications but there is not a good and sufficient vetting process — and that is the problem.

The problem is not the qualifications or even all the different arguments and positions on the various words use. The real problem is that the vetting process has not taken all these factors into account and has failed us — which is why we’re arguing this whole thing about Obama right now.

—

And finally — “Here’s another point where you don’t understand or comprehend. Are you aware of the electoral college? Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? If one person say 1 + 1 = 2 and 10,000 people say it equals 21, which is right? Would your politics make it equal 21?”

Yeah, I do know what the Electoral College is and does and how that is different from the popular vote. And I know why we shouldn’t get rid of the Electoral College and go over to a popular vote, only, for President of the United States.

You should know why I mention the popular vote, though. It’s not because I think that these are the actual *direct votes* that the Constitution says actually elects the President and Vice-President. No, the Electoral voters (for each state) do that.

And that is the reason why the “state laws” have to be enacted for vetting the candidate, as I’ve been saying. It’s not a federal issue, it’s a “states rights” issue and the Federal Government should stay out of the states rights issues. To put a candidate on the ballot is solely a state issue and it should remain that way, and keep the Electoral College and vet the candidate per the state’s laws requiring a proper vetting of such a candidate per the Constitutional requirement. The Supreme Court should *also* stay out of “states rights” issue in this regard, too. It’s solely within the province of the state and not the Federal Government.

So, what’s the reason for mentioning the great plurality of votes for Obama in the election? Well, very simply it’s a good gauge of the support that is out there in the voting public, when it comes down to what *Congress* will do.

There have been some FReepers who have said that Congress will have to throw out Obama, “out of office” for him violating the qualifications for office — or else — the public will “throw the rats out” at the next election.

Well, I say that given the large majority of the voting public going for Obama — I don’t see them switching over and rejecting Obama (after they just “voted” for him) and “throwing out the rats” — because “the rats” wouldn’t do their job and throw Obama out of office. LOL....

AND..., furthermore..., Congressmen *are* voted in by popular vote... :-)

As a last comment on what you just said — you were asking if it would make it right if people voted for the wrong thing (i.e., voted for something false...).

Well..., I’m of the position that “truth” is always “absolute” no matter what political party you are in and no matter how many people think one way or another. And that is precisely why I’m stating the “truth of the matter” with Obama.

I’m stating the truth of the matter in that it’s “politics” and “votes” that get representatives in office and certain policies enacted — no matter what the truth of it is. That happens simply out of how much political power one side or the other has — and it has nothing to do with being “right or wrong”. The public (most of them) have given up a long time ago on the “right” or “wrong” of the matter. And *that* is the truth of it.

So, why I’m engaging in this particular conversation is precisely because I think “truth” exists on an absolute basis, regardless of what transpires through politics.

In “politics” the “process failed” in vetting the candidate properly. We need state laws properly vetting these candidates. And in the political process that Obama went through, no one is going to rid of us Obama for President.

And that’s the truth of the matter, whether it fits what one sees as “absolute truth” or not. Politics have never been about absolute truth.

The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is about absolute truth. And that absolute truth says that the United States will be judged and punished for all her sins (just as the other nations) and that Jesus Christ will return to earth to set up a world-wide Kingdom, ruling from Israel on the Throne of David (and that includes ruling over the United States and with a higher authority than the Constitution).

Now, if we’re talking absolute truth - then that is it...

If we’re talking about politics, then it’s whatever can be put through with the support of the voting public.