Seems to be a disgusting human being, so good. Hopefully they are pro-life and gives him life in prison.

[Most Serene Representative Special Election Ballot (One Seat to Fill):]

Most Serene Representative Special Election Ballot (One Seat to Fill):
[1] windjammer (Liberal-Montana)
[ ] Write-In

Welcome Wyodon!

AT-LARGE SENATE

[1] Alfred F. Jones of Puerto Rico
Labor Party

[  ] HagridoftheDeep of South Carolina
Federalist Party

[2] Kalwejt of Vermont
Liberal Party

[7] Matt from VT of Massachusetts
Federalist Party

[3] MaxQue of Colorado
Labor Party

[4] Mr. X of Ohio
Independent

[5] Napoleon of Connecticut
Liberal Party

[6] Poirot of New York
Independent

Hope he gets better. One of the few people whose policies I despise and yet seems to be a genuinely nice guy.

People, Maduro won. End of the story.

I was for Capriles last year, but I have to say I wanted Maduro to win this time. Maduro has been a clown since he took office, but Capriles became a clown just in order to win the election, so I'm glad he lost, because I'd prefer to vote for the socialist clown over the conservative clown!

1.5% is not a good victory, but it's enough to be a clear win, no need for a recount if the election was clean, something I believe, because it tends to be that way in Venezuela. José Bono, a conservative politician (but in the PSOE) said on TV this morning the process is far more clean in Venezuela than it is in Spain, so I'll believe him this time haha...

What's more, there will be a recount and it's obvious Maduro will be declared winner.

Even if Maduro won, I think a recount would be good, just to make sure, because of the large amount of reported irregularities.

By the way, who will perform the audit?

I thought I read than someone wanted us to ponder if we wanted to hold our elections at the same time than federal ones, to boost tunrout and awareness, but I can't find it back.

That seems like a good idea.

[2] Gass3268
[3] Napoleon
[1] Drj101
[4] Averroes Nix

1. bore
2. Matt

I'm in

Why would there not be a coalition of left-wing parties (i.e. SPD-Grüne-Linke) ?

HP, like pretty much every other Russian politician.

Abstain

I'm really hoping for DOMA to be struck down. That law could be a huge thorn in the side of gay couples even in States where marriage equality is recognized, and probably won't be repealed before a decade or so (House GOPers are a stubborn bunch). Striking it down would be helpful, on top of making sense constitutionally in a "States Rights" perspective.

The SCOTUS obviously won't legalize it everywhere, attacking Civil Unions makes no sense juridically and would be counterproductive, and only striking down Prop 8 would be utterly useless and could even cause a backlash.

So, again, I'm really hoping for Option 2.

As I've said before, I see no way the court strikes down DOMA without finding that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution.  Striking it down on the grounds that only States can define marriage opens up way, way too many questions concerning the boundaries of Federal/State power in a wide variety of areas.  It would effectively invalidate McCulloch v. Maryland.

Well, with what Kennedy+the liberals said today, it seems like it's going to be overturned

Either (depending on city proper vs. urban areas) Paris or Berlin

We should make this a state series.

Aye

[ 3 ] Clarence of Florida
Federalist Party

[1] Kalwejt of Vermont
Liberal Party

[2] Snowguy of North Carolina
Labor Party

[not]

I support option 2, and I think that the Court is going to make a decision of this kind.

I hope I'm not the only liberal (and supporter of gay marriage) who does not think gay marriage bans should be ruled unconstitutional (even though DOMA should). I oppose judicial activism from any side and this would pretty clearly be an overreach of the SC's mission.

Why would it? The Equal Protection Clause seems to argue otherwise. The states can't give legal rights to some but not others.

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

You can imagine whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no good reason to oppose the use of drones, unless you're a luddite who wants to put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason.

But doesn't being an interventionist put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason?

How so? I support a very, very limited troop presence, only in situations (like killing OBL) where small groups of soldiers are absolutely necessary to carry out a mission. Otherwise, we should generally not be in the business of putting troops on the ground to kill terrorists or overthrow regimes. I think Obama's strategy in this regard has been very smart and very successful.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to be killing people overseas at all. But there are terrorist leaders living in the Middle-East who need to be stopped in some way, and drone strikes are the best way to do so while minimizing both American and civilian casualties (and hopefully technology can continue to advance to further minimize collateral damage and civilian deaths).

Also, with regards to the FY 2012 NDAA provision on indefinite detention of Americans that bedstuy and SJoyce are talking about, Obama in a signing statement said he didn't believe it was constitutional and his administration wouldn't use that power anyway.

The problem with the NDAA is that there's no line-item veto. Obama wasn't about to veto the entire military budget for 2012.

Give it up SnowGuy, even Richard Muller says global warming is real now.

Folk Representanter:
[1] ilikeverin
[2] Thomas D
[3] Sewer

So, basically,
if it's a short conclave it's either Ravasi or Scola.
But if it's a long one there's also Scherer, Bagnasco, Sandri, and Erdo, right?

Very good choices.